My VM is lighter (and safer) than your container (2017)
1–10 of 111 posts
Re: My VM is lighter (and safer) than your container (2017)
#2Title is kinda clickbaity (wha-? how can a VM be lighter than a container). It's about unikernels.
Re: My VM is lighter (and safer) than your container (2017)
#3[2017]
Re: My VM is lighter (and safer) than your container (2017)
#4This paper references consistently mischaracterizes AWS Lambda as a "Container as a Service" technology, when in fact it is exactly the sort of lightweight VM that they are describing - https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/firecracker-lightweight-vir...
Re: My VM is lighter (and safer) than your container (2017)
#5Sometimes the less strict separation is a feature, not a bug.
Without folder sharing with dockers for example, it would be pretty useless.
Re: My VM is lighter (and safer) than your container (2017)
#6Containers and VMs are totally not the same thing.
They serve a complete other purpose , as multiple containers can be combined to create an application/service , VMs always use a complete os etc etc anyway the internet is full of the true purpose of containers , they were never meant to use as a "VM" and about security.. meh everything is insecure until proven differently
Re: My VM is lighter (and safer) than your container (2017)
#7Sometimes the less strict separation is a feature, not a bug. Without folder sharing with dockers for example, it would be pretty useless.
While a flawed comparison, WSL does use a VM in conjunction with the 9p protocol to achieve folder sharing.
Re: My VM is lighter (and safer) than your container (2017)
#8Kubernetes says no...
The article is light on detail. Containers and VMs have different use cases. If you self host lightweight VMs is likely the better path, however, once you in the cloud most managed services only provide support for containers.
Re: My VM is lighter (and safer) than your container (2017)
#9This paper references consistently mischaracterizes AWS Lambda as a "Container as a Service" technology, when in fact it is exactly the sort of lightweight VM that they are describing - https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/firecracker-lightweight-vir...
In fairness to this paper, it was written and published before that Firecracker article (2017 vs 2018). From another paper on Firecracker providing a bit of history:
> When we first built AWS Lambda, we chose to use Linux containers to isolate functions, and virtualization to isolate between customer accounts. In other words, multiple functions for the same customer would run inside a single VM, but workloads for different customers always run in different VMs. We were unsatisfied with this approach for several reasons, including the necessity of trading off between security and compatibility that containers represent, and the difficulties of efficiently packing workloads onto fixed-size VMs.
And a bit about the timeline:
> Firecracker has been used in production in Lambda since 2018, where it powers millions of workloads and trillions of requests per month.
Re: My VM is lighter (and safer) than your container (2017)
#10This paper references consistently mischaracterizes AWS Lambda as a "Container as a Service" technology, when in fact it is exactly the sort of lightweight VM that they are describing - https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/firecracker-lightweight-vir...
For what it’s worth, Google’s cloud functions are a container service. You can even download the final docker container.