5 ms·
I can’t find any benchmarks on this, anyone have a sense of the speedup that can be expected here? And for what it’s worth, that version isn’t available yet wh
by themeiguoren 4mo ago
I can’t find any benchmarks on this, anyone have a sense of the speedup that can be expected here?
And for what it’s worth, that version isn’t available yet when I try to update WSL.
- deleted 4mo ago[deleted]
- tonymet 4mo agomore or less this is what I ran to benchmark https://gist.github.com/tonymet/ec7fc4af0eb11c9d5af22c76d05686e2 https://gist.github.com/tonymet/ec7fc4af0eb11c9d5af22c76d056...
- tonymet 4mo agoa test compile of hugo (moderate go app) on a AMD Ryzen 7 7735HS with SSD WSL filesystem = 50s virtiofs = 75s it seems a lot faster. I don't use drvfs (windows files) usually. 50% performance gap is good. And MS Defender kicked in beforehand losing about 10 seconds. with some config you could turn off defender and get this down to 60s
- cheema33 3mo ago> WSL filesystem = 50s > virtiofs = 75s > 50% performance gap is good. I am somewhat confused by this. How much time did the default DrvFs take? Or did you mean DrvFs when wrote virtiofs?
- tonymet 3mo agoDevfs = virtiofs(for this test ) . Drvfs is the param given to mount , which chooses virtiofs or 9p (plan9/ /slow) The results above are wsl vhd vs virtiofs, the new file system for accessing windows files . Plan9 /9p is the old one , not tested .
- tonymet 3mo agoI didn’t test plan9 because I don’t use it
- tonymet 4mo agowsl version 2.7.7 seemed to work with the listed config + reboot