Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How we run Firecracker VMs inside EC2 and start browsers in less than 1s

browser-use.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 251 posts

Re: How we run Firecracker VMs inside EC2 and start browsers in less than 1s

#11

Post by roboben »

rbbydotdev wrote: post #7

> The catch is that regular EC2 is already a VM. AWS runs our host inside its own isolation layer, and then we run browser VMs inside that host. In other words, every browser is a VM inside a VM. yes but i think there is specifically some ec2s which give you hypervisor access and thereby firecracker too - someone correct me if im wrong?

yes only c8i, m8i and r8i instance types support it. It is called nested virtualization[1]

[1] https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2026/02/amazon-ec...

Re: How we run Firecracker VMs inside EC2 and start browsers in less than 1s

#12

Post by thundergolfer »

roboben wrote: post #11
rbbydotdev wrote: post #7

> The catch is that regular EC2 is already a VM. AWS runs our host inside its own isolation layer, and then we run browser VMs inside that host. In other words, every browser is a VM inside a VM. yes but i think there is specifically some ec2s which give you hypervisor access and thereby firecracker too - someone correct me if im wrong?

yes only c8i, m8i and r8i instance types support it. It is called nested virtualization[1] [1] https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2026/02/amazon-ec...

Unfortunately supply is quite limited. If you want to horizontally scale on these instances you need to have a good relationship with AWS so they'll give you a big allocation before c9i is a thing.

Re: How we run Firecracker VMs inside EC2 and start browsers in less than 1s

#14

Post by roboben »

thundergolfer wrote: post #12
roboben wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes only c8i, m8i and r8i instance types support it. It is called nested virtualization[1] [1] https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2026/02/amazon-ec...

Unfortunately supply is quite limited. If you want to horizontally scale on these instances you need to have a good relationship with AWS so they'll give you a big allocation before c9i is a thing.

also i found them much less stable than metal instances running into weird kvm failures

Re: How we run Firecracker VMs inside EC2 and start browsers in less than 1s

#15

Post by kevmo314 »

gozzoo wrote: post #13

The article doesn't mention docker at all. I don't understand why containers are not viable solution for headless browsers.

Their competitive advantage is not so much running the browser but rather making the browser undetectable.

They boast a large residential proxy network too, which tells you all you need to know.

Re: How we run Firecracker VMs inside EC2 and start browsers in less than 1s

#18

Post by Reformedot »

roboben wrote: post #14
thundergolfer wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately supply is quite limited. If you want to horizontally scale on these instances you need to have a good relationship with AWS so they'll give you a big allocation before c9i is a thing.

also i found them much less stable than metal instances running into weird kvm failures

Yes, it is. It was a challenge to make it work smooth without metal. The scaling out speed was one of the main reasons

Re: How we run Firecracker VMs inside EC2 and start browsers in less than 1s

#19

Post by torginus »

gozzoo wrote: post #13

The article doesn't mention docker at all. I don't understand why containers are not viable solution for headless browsers.

Or processes. Chrome has builtin process isolation for every browser tab. It starts up darn near instantly, and scores as 'pretty good' as far as sandboxing is concerned.
Post reply on HN