Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by 1996 2008 days ago
> Performance was better than it was with WSL1 for me, at least (especially IO).

WSL1 performance is better for CPU-bound problems

WSL2 only shines due to the VHDX approach. If WSL1 could use a VHDX or (gasp!) a native partition in a native linux format, it would smoke WSL2.
2 comments
tracker1 2008 days ago
Probably, but it also introduced a lot of edge cases for compatibility issues. I thought it was a reasonable approach, though likely took more devs than just supporting the more tightly integrated VM environments.

I will say that Docker Desktop works MUCH more smoothly with WSL2 than the prior approach.

About the only issue I see now is about once a month I have to reboot because the magic localhost port mapping between docker, wsl-ubuntu and native host goes wonky. It's not so bad as long as I realize before diving into a rabbit hole to figure out why I can't connect to something.

link
folkrav 2008 days ago
WSL1 was more or less the reverse-equivalent of WINE as I understood it, more or less a translation layer for a subset of syscalls, the approach is awfully limited from the get go. Not sure how using a VHDX or partition would solve that. We'd be back to square one, with things like containers being unusable again.
link
1996 2007 days ago
> Not sure how using a VHDX or partition would solve that

The problem with WSL1 is limited to disk IO performance, because the compatibility layer that's easy to do with system calls isn't so easy to do with the filesystem.

> We'd be back to square one, with things like containers being unusable again.

It's complementary. WSL2 when you play with containers, WSL1 when you don't.

Personally, I don't bother with containers for about 90% of the development cycle - and it's just for testing before being deployed to a genuine linux, not some VM.

Also, if you want to run servers with WSL (say, postgres), having containers is the last of your problems.

link
folkrav 2007 days ago
Ah, different usecases then. I pretty much tend to go containers from A-Z for anything non-trivial, thus WSL1 was more or less useless for me. IO is also a big problem, just running a simple git status on a bigger project is a PITA.
link
Dylan16807 2007 days ago
It's not all that limited.

VHDX/partition would help significantly by not being NTFS and/or enabling a linux-style dentry cache.

link
folkrav 2007 days ago
I wouldn't call having only a subset of system calls, no containerization, no background services, no proper init system, no kernel modules, "not all that limited". But maybe that's just my use case.
link
Dylan16807 2006 days ago
I've never hit a system call I wanted but wasn't available on WSL. In fact the couple times I've been disappointed at the lack of a system call it was when I was booting linux.

No containerization: Agreed, this is a significant limit.

Background services work just fine, I don't know what you're getting at. I have cron and stuff going.

What's improper about the init system? I start services, I stop services, it seems fine.

No kernel modules: I feel like this is pretty niche.

link