[Info-vax] RMS intro

[Dan Cross]

In article <7b209da2cb6d3666421c56fefbd470ceba999f36.camel at munted.eu>,
Single Stage to Orbit  <alex.buell at munted.eu> wrote:
>On Tue, 2024-01-02 at 13:40 -0600, Craig A. Berry wrote:
>> On 1/2/24 7:24 AM, Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> > On 1/2/2024 7:46 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
>> > > Single Stage to Orbit wrote:
>> > > > Arne Vajhøj wrote:
>> > > > > You sort of get both with WSL.
>> > > > 
>> > > > No, WSL is terrible! Use WSL2 instead.
>> > > 
>> > > Performance-wise sure, but there is a certain technical elegance
>> > > to 
>> > > the WSL1 mechanism.
>> > 
>> > Was the problem with WSL1 performance?
>> > 
>> > I always thought that the problem was compatibility
>> > (that 99.9% compatibility was not god enough).
>> 
>> The docs say that WSL2 performance is worse than WSL1 for operations
>> involving file system integration.  Details here:
>> 
>> https://github.com/microsoft/WSL/issues/4197#issuecomment-604592340
>
>Eh? I thought it was WSL1 that had the performance issuses, not WSL2.

Got a citation?  I'd believe it's the other way around; a world
switch into Linux from Windows is going to be more expensive
than a system call, and accessing a filesystem remotely (surely
how they implement access to NTFS from WSL2) will mean
ping-ponging between Windows and Linux several times to satisfy
an IO request.

	- Dan C.