Originally posted by AndyChow
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Windows 10 WSL vs. Docker on Windows 10 vs. Bare Metal Linux Performance
Collapse
X
-
- Likes 1
-
Hi - PM for WSL here:
Originally posted by SystemCrasher View PostSo Windows sucks at IO & filesystems
Actually, no! Despite claims to the contrary, NTFS is pretty powerful, flexible, and supports a very sophisticated and expressive permission system that powers and protects the data of ~80% of all computer users world-wide.
Heck, we even use NTFS to store all your WSL files: WSL emulates Linux FS semantics and permissions, and maintains additional per-file/folder metadata. Alas, this overhead currently slows File IO down somewhat, but we're working hard to remedy this issue in future Windows 10 releases.
Originally posted by SystemCrasher View Postand sucks at process creation
Ermmm … no. For pretty much all non-disk-IO-intensive tests, WSL generally performs as well as *NIX on native tin, and is even a little quicker in some cases. Windows has improved A LOT in many ways compared to earlier versions of the OS.
Originally posted by SystemCrasher View Postsends all keypresses to MShttp://www.zdnet.com/article/windows...elemetry-data/
No, this is not true. Nowhere close. For those interested in what telemetry we DO receive, this may be of interest to you:
Originally posted by SystemCrasher View Postcomes with weird license terms and costs somethinghttps://www.networkworld.com/article...-kill-you.html
Most licenses are weird. They're written by lawyers or for/by people with particular objectives in mind, e.g.:
Originally posted by SystemCrasher View PostReally good reason to use Linux on bare metal, any day
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post
I have no real knowledge of WSL but does it use exactly the same binaries that Ubuntu uses or does it use their own repository so that they might be compiled with a different version of GCC or something like that?
WSL is distro agnostic. distro vendors like Canonical and SUSE upload their own distro to the store. The user downloads and installs the distros on their machines. WSL just executes unmodified ELF-64 binaries, translating Linux SYSCALLS into NT kernel calls where it can, or providing Linux specific behaviors/data where there's no native NT equivalent.
For more info, take a look at this page full of resources: https://aka.ms/learnwsl.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Michael View Post
Each distro/OS file-system was their defaults.
Comment
-
Originally posted by andrebrait View Post
Hey Michael, it seems most of the performance impact WSL has comes from Windows Defender being enabled. I can confirm that disabling Windows Defender makes apt a lot faster on my computer. It seems Windows Defender will scan everything and slow everything down. If not too troublesome, could you try disabling Windows Defender the next time?
The WSL team is working hard to remedy disk IO perf issues for future OS updates.
Comment
-
Originally posted by bitcrazed View Postplease do not disable Defender or any 3rd party anti-malware in production environments. Doing so would be akin to driving without seatbelts.
Anti-virus and other anti-malware software does not have a demonstrable security benefit.
In many cases, it makes your system even less secure (not surprising, running complex parsers on anything which the computer comes across...)
While Microsoft Defender is often less problematic than 3rd party products, it is unnecessary to keep a system secure, and damaging to system security at worst.
Comment
-
Originally posted by chithanh View PostWhile Microsoft Defender is often less problematic than 3rd party products, it is unnecessary to keep a system secure, and damaging to system security at worst.
While, yes, AV/AM may have reduced benefit to those of if who are conscientious about how we use our computers and what we allow to run on them, the VAST majority of unwitting users who -- yes, really DO want to watch this video and are happy for the necessary "Codec" to install to allow me to do so -- do not, and do not understand what they have to do to operate their computers safely.
For such users, an effective suite of anti-malware tools and regularly updated software and OS' are demonstrably beneficial. Not perfect - not by a loooong shot, but beneficial.
I've seen some stats demonstrating the efficacy of an anti-malware suite during a major vuln attack - it'spretty compellingand eye-opening stuff.
Comment
-
You have seen some stats that compare anti-malware vs. no anti-malware? Surely they can be incorporated into a peer reviewed scientific paper, but until now there are no such publications. Also the experts' opinion seems to not value anti-malware highly.
(Source: Google)
Originally posted by bitcrazed View PostFor such users, an effective suite of anti-malware tools and regularly updated software and OS' are demonstrably beneficial. Not perfect - not by a loooong shot, but beneficial.
Until then, the only sure "benefit" is that anti-malware serves as blameware, deflecting blame from users and management when an incident happens.
Comment
Comment