I have a docker compose setup that consists of:
wordpress:php8.1
mariadb:latest
traefik:v2.7
To rule out Windows networking differences, this is the benchmark ran from inside:
curl --resolve example.com:443:172.18.0.3 --write-out '%{time_total}\n' --output /dev/null https://example.com
Where example.com is my custom domain, the IP is traefik container's current IP. I'm running the command SSH'd into VMware, and then from PowerShell after typing wsl. I copied the project from one place to the other as-is (kudos to Docker for portability).
It consistently returns ~0.2s for the VMware-backed instance, while it's 0.4-0.6s for WSL. It represents the load of the index.php itself which includes HTML source of a performant WP site, using a handcoded theme, no plugins. Locally, the staticized version doesn't seem to have a measurable difference, or very slight, all under 10ms on both systems.
Rest of the config:
Windows 11 22H2 22610.1, WSL 2, VMware 16.1.0 build-17198959, Docker installed the same way and NOT Docker Desktop.
UFW off.
The vmdk and vhdx files are on the same SSD.
Not using /mnt files across filesystems: everything is under the home folder of each system, respectively.
OS is Ubuntu 20.04.4 LTS in WSL, and Ubuntu 21.10 in VMware. I tried Ubuntu 22.04 LTS in WSL and WMware too, same numbers.
I even tried with Nginx + PHP-FPM variant of WP in WSL, and OpenLiteSpeed in VMware, nothing changes the numbers.
The only difference I know of is that I had to sudo update-alternatives --config iptables and choose /usr/sbin/iptables-legacy to make Docker work in WSL, which on WMware I didn't need to do.
Several caveats with my answer:
I wish I had a solution for you, but your primary question is why, which this should answer. And perhaps the data here will help lead us to a solution.
I hope I'm wrong about this, and I may well be. I've always heard anecdotally that WSL2 performance was "near native." Your experience, however, coupled with my benchmarking below, leads me to believe that may not be the case.
That said, I'm going to report the data that I came up with in investigating this.
Short summary -- My benchmarking seems to show a substantial disk IO and memory performance delta between Hyper-V and VMWare that likely explains your WordPress results.
Supporting data and research
I started out with a similar test scenario as yours, but attempted to reduce it to as much of an MRE as I could:
Configuration
Hardware:
i9500
16GB of RAM
SSD
Fairly fresh/recent install of Windows 11 Pro, with WSL2 enabled
Fresh install of VMWare Workstation 16 Player
Virtualization:
Default VMWare settings (2 CPUs, 4GB RAM)
Default WSL2 settings (6 CPUs, 8GB RAM)
In both WSL2 and VMWare:
Ubuntu Server 20.04 guest/distribution
Docker installed in both (from official repo, not Docker Desktop)
ubuntu:latest (22.04) Docker image
MySQL server (MariaDB) and Sysbench installed in the Ubuntu 22.04 Docker container
Note that for the benchmarking below:
I closed VMWare when testing WSL2, and vice-versa.
I did not reboot the Windows host between tests. However, note that some of these tests were run multiple times, from both VMWare and WSL2/Hyper-V with no substantial differences in the results, so I do not believe a reboot would have changed the results measurably.
Benchmarking
I started off with some basic Sysbench testing of CPU and Memory. This was done from within the Docker container.
A simple sysbench cpu --time=300 run:
VMWare
WSL2
events/sec
1,250.97
1,252.89
# events
375,294.00
375,869.00
Latency
↪ Min
0.77
0.77
↪ Avg
0.80
0.80
↪ Max
31.40
4.07
↪ 95th percentile
0.87
0.86
Pretty much an even matchup there.
sysbench memory run:
VMWare
WSL2
Total operations
64,449,416.00
6,456,274.00
MiB transferred
62,938.88
6,304.96
Latency
↪ Min
0.00
0.00
↪ Avg
0.00
0.00
↪ Max
23.63
0.12
↪ 95th percentile
0.00
0.00
Ouch - WSL2's Docker image is running at about 10% of the memory bandwidth of VMWare. I'll be honest; it was tough to spot this until I inserted the comma separators here in the table ;-). At first glance, I thought the two were on par.
I decided to skip straight to MySQL testing, also using Sysbench, since this would probably provide the closest match to your WordPress usage. This was done (after a corresponding prepare) with:
sysbench oltp_read_write.lua --mysql-user=root --time=300 --tables=10 --table-size=1000000 --range_selects=off --report-interval=1 --histogram run
I'll skip the histogram and second-by-second results (but I have them saved if they are useful to anyone), but here's the summary data:
VMWare
WSL2
Queries performed
↪ Read
583,220
66,910
↪ Write
233,288
26,764
↪ Other
116,644
13,382
↪ Total
933,152
107,056
Transactions
58,322
6,691
Ignored errors
0
0
Reconnects
0
0
Latency
↪ Min
2.08
14.54
↪ Avg
5.14
44.83
↪ Max
71.67
193.75
↪ 95th Percentile
11.65
81.48
Again, ouch -- WSL2's MySQL performance (in Docker, at least) is benchmarking at around a tenth of that of VMWare. It's likely that most of your observed performance difference is represented in these results.
At this point, I began to suspect that the problem could be reproduced in a more generic (IO) way at the hypervisor level, ignoring WSL2 and Docker entirely. WSL2, of course, runs inside a (hidden to the user) Hyper-V backed VM, even though it doesn't require the full Hyper-V manager.
I proceeded to enable Hyper-V and install another Ubuntu 20.04 guest in it. I then installed Sysbench in both the VMWare and Hyper-V guest Ubuntu OS.
I then ran a disk IO comparison with:
sysbench fileio --file-total-size=15G prepare
sysbench fileio --file-total-size=15G --file-test-mode=rndrw --time=300 --max-requests=0 --histogram run
The results bore out the suspicion:
VMWare Ubuntu Guest
Hyper-V Ubuntu Guest
File operations
↪ Reads/sec
2,847.07
258.37
↪ Writes/sec
1,898.05
172.25
↪ fsyncs/sec
6,074.06
551.20
Throughput
↪ MiB/sec Read
44.49
4.04
↪ MiB/sec Written
29.66
2.69
Latency
↪ Min
0.00
0.00
↪ Avg
0.09
1.02
↪ Max
329.88
82.77
↪ 95th Percentile
0.32
4.10
One interesting thing to note during this stage was that the prepare operation for Sysbench was faster on Hyper-V by about 30% (IIRC). I did not capture the results since the prepare step isn't supposed to be part of the benchmarking.
However, after reading your comment and benchmarking results on unzip being faster on WSL2, I'm thinking there may be a connection. Both VMWare and Hyper-V/WSL2 use dynamically resized virtual disks (sometimes called "sparse"). The size of the virtual disk on the host OS essentially starts as a near-0-byte file and grows as needed up to its maximum size.
It may be that either:
Hyper-V has a performance advantage when growing the virtual disk.
Or in our testing, VMWare needed to grow the disk for these operations but the Hyper-V/WSL2 disk already had excess free space (from previously deleted files) available.
I cannot say for sure exactly which order I did things in, and the only way to know for sure would be to "shrink/compress" the virtual disks and try again.
Summary
It appears, to my naïve eye and at least on the "Pro" level of Windows, that Hyper-V has some serious performance limitations when compared to VMWare.
Tuning attempts and other comparisons
I did attempt some tuning of the Hyper-V system, but I'm no expert in that area. Regardless, there's not much that we as users could do to extend any Hyper-V tuning to WSL2 -- Microsoft would have to make most of those changes.
I did try converting the dynamic VHDX to a fixed one, in hopes that it would increase IO, but it did not make a substantial change either.
I've also now also tried:
Disabling swap in WSL2
Running the Sysbench tests with more threads
Setting a fixed 12GB RAM size for WSL2.
Running sysbench under WSL2 on my primary desktop, which has faster memory and an NVMe drive compared to my test system's SSD.
Memory speed was significantly improved - Apples-to-oranges, but my desktop's memory numbers were comparable to VMWare running on the lower-end test system.
However, this made no difference on the disk IO numbers. They were still in the same range as the test system.
Next steps
It would be great if you could, perhaps, run some similar benchmarking apart from your WordPress instance, since you already have the two environments set up. If we can corroborate the data, we should probably report it to, at least, the WSL team. They can hopefully either provide some guidance on how to tune WSL2 to near parity with VMWare, or work with the Hyper-V team on this.
Again, it does seem surprising to me that the disparity between Hyper-V and VMWare is so great. I still struggle to believe that I myself am not doing something wrong in the benchmarking.
After taking a nice look into wsl and classic VMs and refreshing my memory a little bit, I have reached a theory, but I cannot prove it.
I hope this answer helps in anyway or attracts someone with a direct knowledge of this question.
I asked here in the comments and to myself:
Is it possible that Hyper-V is just configured to use much less % of 'raw power' than VMWare? (I.E: Microsoft giving WSL not a lot of priority compared to windows and windows getting almost all the available resources) Or is it a more intrinsic problem with Hyper-V performance (coding etc)?
This comes from my own understanding that WSL seems to be more intended for accessing linux commodities from windows but not for a resource-intensive (including network speed) activity like hosting a webpage. Due to how WSL is integrated, it seems intuitive to think that it will run faster than a typical VM, but a VM is fully configurable, you can almost give it full access to resources.
If you look at these answers, you can see that it doesn't really seem to be intended to replace a VM per se.
So I think that WSL probably is not configured to these kind of tasks, neither it is meant to be configurable enough to change that.
I think that the main usage Microsoft was aiming with WSL was to give windows users a dinamic workflow in which you could switch between Windows and Linux commodities (since, IMHO, Linux is much better in console commodities than Windows), but NOT to make WSL a full-fledged VM with all of it's characteristics. It also makes sense since, why would you want to make, for example, a webpage and host it in a linux environment that has the burden of sharing resources with a windows environment you are not using AND that it is the 'main' one?
There are known networking bottlenecks in WSL2.
See this GitHub issue for potential workarounds: https://github.com/microsoft/WSL/issues/4901
Some solutions that have worked for others:
https://github.com/microsoft/WSL/issues/4901#issuecomment-664735137
https://github.com/microsoft/WSL/issues/4901#issuecomment-909723742
https://github.com/microsoft/WSL/issues/4901#issuecomment-957851617
I have updated my windows and R cannot run, and hence neither can R studio. When I run R GUI it just freezes and is unresponsive. I have allowed chromium exemption to the firewall
I am on Windows Insider program and has just updated to
Windows 10 Home, Insider Preview
Evaluation Copy.Build 20190.rs_prerelease.200807-1609
Note that R GUI freezes and then shuts down on its own, so maybe the problem is R GUI and not R Studio.
I get the following errors on R studio.
This site can’t be reached
127.0.0.1 refused to connect.
Try:
Checking the connection
Checking the proxy and the firewall
ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED
Cannot Connect to R
RStudio can't establish a connection to R. This usually indicates one of the following:
The R session is taking an unusually long time to start, perhaps because of slow operations in startup scripts or slow network drive access.
RStudio is unable to communicate with R over a local network port, possibly because of firewall restrictions or anti-virus software.
Please try the following:
If you've customized R session creation by creating an R profile (e.g. located at ~/.Rprofile), consider temporarily removing it.
If you are using a firewall or antivirus software which guards access to local network ports, add an exclusion for the RStudio and rsession executables.
Run RGui, R.app, or R in a terminal to ensure that R itself starts up correctly.
Further troubleshooting help can be found on our website:
Troubleshooting RStudio Startup
This has been fixed with Windows 10 Insider Preview Build 20201 (released on August 26, 2020 in the Dev channel).The previous two builds were missing 64-bit APIs required by the prebuilt version of R.
Same issue.
Rollback to the previous version solves the problem.
I think it is about the update of the graphic features of Windows.
Here is what Microsoft said in the build 20190 changelog:
Improved Graphics Settings experience
While this isn’t a new feature all together, we have made significant changes based on customer feedback that will benefit our customers’ Graphics Settings experience. We have made the following improvements:
We’ve updated the Graphics Settings to allow users to specify a default high performance GPU.
We’ve updated the Graphics Settings to allow users to pick a specific GPU on a per application basis.
I've been trying to reduce the check time on a package I am submitting to CRAN. On my local machines, check time is somewhere between a minute (i7 CPU) and 2 minutes (i5 CPU). However, CRAN reviewers keep pointing out the check time is over 10 minutes. The only way I could find to reproduce such long check times is by uploading my package to http://win-builder.r-project.org/, where it indeed takes > 600 s to check.
I wish I could reproduce this check time locally so I am not dependent on a remote solution. The only difference I can see between Win builder and my local machine is the OS (Win vs. Linux) and how Win builder seems to be doing multiarch checks (i386 and x64).
I am not sure how to reproduce this locally. I have tried R CMD check with seemingly-relevant switches like --multiarch and --force-multiarch but it doesn't seem to be doing anything differently. I guess I have to install some extra packages like r-cran-i386 or whatever, but I couldn't find anything of the sort in my repositories ("R" can be such a PITA of a search expression) and the instructions on README files like the one on https://cran.r-project.org/bin/linux/ubuntu/ didn't get me far enough.
I am already using --as-cran, and am aware of solutions like this, though I think installing R i386 on a separate VM containing a 32-bit OS defeats the purpose of what I am trying to accomplish.
I have downloaded the Cordapp example provided in the Corda website. I follow all the steps (to run it from the console) in
https://docs.corda.net/tutorial-cordapp.html
without any problem until "Running the example CorDapp". Here i get to errors one way or another.
First, when running
workflows-kotlin/build/nodes/runnodes
one or more of the nodes would not start. I was using a virtual machine with 2 cores and 4GB of RAM. Eventually, i noticed it seemed to be an issue with the RAM, so i changed the VM condig to 4 cpus and 10 GB of RAM.
Now, i can run
workflows-kotlin/build/nodes/runnodes
and get all 4 nodes working but, as soon as I run the following instruction
/gradlew runPartyXServer
Where X=[A,B,C] for each of the possible nodes, after 20-30 seconds as much, the machine repently slows down and aborts.
The VM has Fedora 30, 4 cores and 10GB of RAM. It is empty except for what i downloaded for the tutorial. I cannot believe those are not enough resources to run the tutorial, Am i wrong? Do i need more? may it be another thing?
Any help is welcome.
== Solved ==
The issue were the resources. I jumped to 8 cores and 32GB and it ran. I will try at some point with 16GB. In any case, the problem, from my point of view, is that having those large hardware requirements, the tutorial should include a section describing the minimum setup needed to run it.
From the given information, I believe you had ran into a Memory issue.
According to our documentation, Corda has a suggested minimal requirement of 1GB of Heap and 2-3GB of Host RAM per node.
https://docs.corda.net/docs/corda-enterprise/4.4/node/sizing-and-performance.html#sizing
I would suggest either reduce the number of nodes hosted on a single machine or expand your RAM size of the VM
I have some questions:
Is it possible to install openstack on a Notebook with a 4GB DD3 Ram? Because the website says it needs atleast 8GB of RAM.
They say it requirs a double-QuadCore , I assue that means Octacore. Can we install that on a Quadcore?
They say that there is no possibility to install it on a NAS . Did you find any where if there is a possibility to do?. I dint find any even after asking our friend(google).
All in all, is it at-all possible to install on it a notebook/Desktop?
That advice is for production environments,
so 1)If you just want to play around your notebook will do fine. I had a succesful test-run on a 1.2 Ghz 1GB Netbook. It became incredibly slow when it launched it's first instance...
With a Double Quadcore they actually mean two seperate Quad-cores, as in two quad-core xeon processors on a single motherboard
So 2) yes you can install it on a quad-core.
3) a NAS device running openstack an openstack storage service seems to be unlikely indeed. You will most likely need more computing power.However If your NAS supports NFS or SSH or sth you can probably mount this drive and use it for storage.
4) You can perfectly build a all-in-one openstack test setup on your notebook. Performance will be low, but acceptable for testing.
It depends on what you mean by "install OpenStack". OpenStack itself is an extremely modular framework consisting on many services (Compute, Networking, Image service, Block Storage, Object Storage, Orchestration, Telemetry, ...). On top of that, a typical production deployment of OpenStack also requires several components, like load balancers, caching systems, firewalls, web servers and others. It is definitely possible to install a minimal openstack system, even on an average laptop.
The simplest way to run OpenStack on a laptop/desktop is to use Devstack, a shell script that installs all services from source and run them (by default) on a single machine. It is customizable enough to provide very good testing ground; it's used by OpenStack developers as well as the OpenStack QA team to test latest developments against "real" systems.
To avoid messing up your system, it's generally recommended to install OpenStack in a VM. From devstack doc:
DevStack should run in any virtual machine running a supported Linux release. It will perform best with 2Gb or more of RAM.
As of the time of this writing (Jan 2015), supported distros are:
Ubuntu (latest LTS)
Fedora
CentOS
Regarding NAS: you can of course use it, but "outside" Openstack apis, by providing mount points to your vms. It's even mandatory if you want to support live migration.