| ▲ | m_mueller 4 hours ago |
| Afaik a lot of it is ntfs. It’s just so slow with lots of small files. Compare unzipping moderately large source repos on windows vs. POSIX, it’s day and night. |
|
| ▲ | p_ing 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| No, it’s not NTFS, it’s the file system filter architecture of the NT kernel. |
| |
| ▲ | mattbee 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I had internalised that it was Windows Defender hooking every file operation and checking it against a blacklist? I've had it forced off for years. |
|
|
| ▲ | PaulHoule 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Just deleting 40,000 files from the node_modules of a modest Javascript project can thoroughly hammer NTFS. |
| |
| ▲ | fluoridation 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I think part of that is Explorer, rather than NTFS. Try doing it from the console instead. rd /q /s <dir>. | | |
| ▲ | PaulHoule 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | It still takes a lot longer than Linux or Mac OS X. | | |
| ▲ | fluoridation 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | NTFS is definitely slower to modify file system structures than ext4. | | |
| ▲ | PaulHoule an hour ago | parent [-] | | A big part of it is that NT has to check with the security manager service every time it does a file operation. The original WSL for instance was a very NT answer to the problem of Linux compatibility: NT already had a personality that looked like Windows 95, just make one that looks like Linux. It worked great with the exception of the slow file operations which I think was seen as a crisis over Redmond because many software developers couldn’t or wouldn’t use WSL because of the slow file operations affecting many build systems. So we got the rather ugly WSL2 which uses a real Linux filesystem so the files perform like files on Linux. |
|
|
|
|
