[wsl2] filesystem performance is much slower than wsl1 in /mnt
I decided to open this as a separate issue because although it's related to the generic issue of filesystem performance it's directly related to WSL 2 while the other issues are for WSL 1 and it's showing very conflicting results. * Your Windows build number: (Type `ver` at a Windows Command Prompt) Version 10.0.18917 Build 18917 * What you're doing and what's happening: I'm testing filesystem write speed in /mnt using dd command. Performing the following tests ### WSL2 root@LUCIANO-PC:/home/# dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/e/testfile bs=1M count=1000 1000+0 records in 1000+0 records out 1048576000 bytes (1.0 GB, 1000 MiB) copied, 25.939 s, **40.4 MB/s** ### WSL1 root@LUCIANO-PC:/home/# dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/e/testfile bs=1M count=20000 20000+0 records in 20000+0 records out 20971520000 bytes (21 GB, 20 GiB) copied, 47.4897 s, **442 MB/s** On / it's actually the reverse. WSL2 is more than 2 times faster than WSL1. * What's wrong / what should be happening instead: I would expect the filesystem performance in /mnt to at least be on the same level but it's over 10 times slower. Another interesting fact is that if I mount the same drive as a cifs share I get 3x performance ### WSL 2 (cifs share) root@LUCIANO-PC:/mnt/sambae# dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/sambae/testfile bs=1M count=10000 10000+0 records in 10000+0 records out 10485760000 bytes (10 GB, 9.8 GiB) copied, 84.001 s, 125 MB/s ### An update of the current status because it's way too hidden in this thread. Late
Posted by ioweb-gr on Jun 19, 2019, 10:29 PM
Tags
Related issues
- struct's lifetime requirements can be bypassed via covariant field assignment
- Proposal to Reorganize the Moderation Team and Review Moderation Policies
- Progressive FPS degradation appears to be related to dota2.com — blocking the domain prevents the performance loss
- proposal: container/...: generic collection types
- Better Custom Endpoint BYOK
- A concrete policy for backward compatibility until Godot 5.0
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.3,500 issues0 comments
github (Other)
struct's lifetime requirements can be bypassed via covariant field assignment
Proposal to Reorganize the Moderation Team and Review Moderation Policies
Progressive FPS degradation appears to be related to dota2.com — blocking the domain prevents the performance loss
proposal: container/...: generic collection types
Better Custom Endpoint BYOK
A concrete policy for backward compatibility until Godot 5.0
New MTP models not supported
Tracking: 429 / Capacity Issues
[wsl2] filesystem performance is much slower than wsl1 in /mnt
I decided to open this as a separate issue because although it's related to the generic issue of filesystem performance it's directly related to WSL 2 while the other issues are for WSL 1 and it's showing very conflicting results. * Your Windows build number: (Type `ver` at a Windows Command Prompt) Version 10.0.18917 Build 18917 * What you're doing and what's happening: I'm testing filesystem write speed in /mnt using dd command. Performing the following tests ### WSL2 root@LUCIANO-PC:/home/# dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/e/testfile bs=1M count=1000 1000+0 records in 1000+0 records out 1048576000 bytes (1.0 GB, 1000 MiB) copied, 25.939 s, **40.4 MB/s** ### WSL1 root@LUCIANO-PC:/home/# dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/e/testfile bs=1M count=20000 20000+0 records in 20000+0 records out 20971520000 bytes (21 GB, 20 GiB) copied, 47.4897 s, **442 MB/s** On / it's actually the reverse. WSL2 is more than 2 times faster than WSL1. * What's wrong / what should be happening instead: I would expect the filesystem performance in /mnt to at least be on the same level but it's over 10 times slower. Another interesting fact is that if I mount the same drive as a cifs share I get 3x performance ### WSL 2 (cifs share) root@LUCIANO-PC:/mnt/sambae# dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/sambae/testfile bs=1M count=10000 10000+0 records in 10000+0 records out 10485760000 bytes (10 GB, 9.8 GiB) copied, 84.001 s, 125 MB/s ### An update of the current status because it's way too hidden in this thread. Late
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.