And if one needs windows native/libraries - then dealing with windows and its 
quirks is unavoidable. Its orthogonal to cygwin.

Satish

On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, Satish Balay via petsc-dev wrote:

> Sure - if WSL is sufficient for a use case that is fine. Its a simpler way to 
> install something equivalent to a Linux VM on windows.
> 
> cygwin instructions are for building native windows binaries with MS 
> compilers. [usable with other MS native libraries]. If this is not the 
> use-case - its easier to just use linux - or linux equvalent like WSL
> 
> Satish
> 
> 
> On Mon, 15 Jun 2020, Jacob Faibussowitsch wrote:
> 
> > Hello All,
> > 
> > Having recently had to assist a coworker in setting up a petsc install on 
> > windows and running into a whole host of issues with getting Cygwin and an 
> > overly aggressive windows defender (of all things) to play nice I 
> > discovered WSL, specifically WSL2. With regards to ease-of-use and install 
> > time, WSL2 was by far easier to do than Cygwin. The only out of the 
> > ordinary step required was turning on virtualization in the BIOS but this 
> > seems like it is not a common step, and after installing an ubuntu distro 
> > it was smooth sailing.
> > 
> > The only performance hiccup that I have so far encountered when using WSL2 
> > is that I/O performance when pulling from the windows filesystem in 
> > /mnt/c/foo/bar is somewhat slower than just moving files within the VM 
> > itself, but in my opinion this is relatively minor. Additionally while 
> > there is no current way to use CUDA on WSL, NVIDIA has apparently already 
> > started a limited test-release for WSL2.
> > 
> > Currently, from the installation page it seems like Cygwin is the preferred 
> > method of installing petsc on windows but if it is this easy to get things 
> > up and running with WSL2 (and the above performance qualms are satisfied) 
> > then we should consider making it the default. 
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> > Jacob Faibussowitsch
> > (Jacob Fai - booss - oh - vitch)
> > Cell: (312) 694-3391
> > 
> > 
> 

Reply via email to