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

WasmEdge

wasmedge.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 88 posts

Re: WasmEdge

#61

Post by juntao »

jetzzz wrote: post #59

If you are running untrusted WASM files with wasmedge be aware that it doesn't sandbox by default. WASM can contain native code that will be executed without sandboxing. From the docs [0][1]: > The wasmedge CLI tool will execute the WebAssembly in ahead-of-time(AOT) mode if available in the input WASM file. > The wasmedgec can compile WebAssembly into native machine code (i.e., the AOT compiler). For the pure WebAsse…

Hmm, we allow the CLI to execute AOT code sections embedded in WASM files as a convenience feature -- you can do AOT compilation and then execute it on your CLI.

For server side deployment, you should always do the AOT compilation on the server. But I agree this could be more clear. We are adding a new CLI option to disable AOT code segment in the WASM file for people who do not wish to perform the separate AOT compilation step.

Re: WasmEdge

#62

Post by ushakov »

benatkin wrote: post #56

There's this, too: https://github.com/fermyon/spin "Spin is an open source framework for building and running fast, secure, and composable cloud microservices with WebAssembly"

They’re VC-funded and their business model is vendor lock-in. See their response to my discussion:

https://github.com/fermyon/spin/discussions/861

With WasmEdge there is no vendor lock-in

Re: WasmEdge

#63

Post by Deukhoofd »

rafale wrote: post #43

Why use a WASM VM when there are more mature VMs out there like .net/CLR? What's the benefit?

It's ideal for running untrusted code, as it will only be able to access the external functions it's given by the host. This in contrast with other VMs, where you're effectively giving full system access to the VM.

Besides that, WASM allows for an open universal standard for VMs. This means that we can easily develop with many different languages for WASM.

Re: WasmEdge

#64

Post by laurencerowe »

syrusakbary wrote: post #41
laurencerowe wrote: post #6

Interesting to see that it has JavaScript support built in. It seems to be based on QuickJS which will work for some things but as they acknowledge quite slow. > In the end, running v8 in a cloud-native environment often requires a full stack of software tools consisting of "Linux container + guest OS + node or deno + v8", which makes it much heavier and slower than a simple WasmEdge + QuickJS container runtime. http…

Interesting. Have you tried to benchmark it also with Wasmer [1]? I'd be curious to see what the timings might be. [1] https://wasmer.io/

How is snapshot restore performance in wasmer?

Re: WasmEdge

#66

Post by syrusakbary »

laurencerowe wrote: post #64
syrusakbary wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. Have you tried to benchmark it also with Wasmer [1]? I'd be curious to see what the timings might be. [1] https://wasmer.io/

How is snapshot restore performance in wasmer?

I guess you are referring to wizer [1]? (it's the closest to snapshot restore in the WebAssembly world). In case you are referring to that, the wizer strategy is valid for any Wasm runtime (and it will be fast once the Wasm module is snapshotted by wizer).

If you refer towards Wasm module loading times (once a module is already been precompiled), Wasmer is already one of the fastest ones.

https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wizer

Re: WasmEdge

#67

Post by [deleted] »

ushakov wrote: post #62
benatkin wrote: post #56

There's this, too: https://github.com/fermyon/spin "Spin is an open source framework for building and running fast, secure, and composable cloud microservices with WebAssembly"

They’re VC-funded and their business model is vendor lock-in. See their response to my discussion: https://github.com/fermyon/spin/discussions/861 With WasmEdge there is no vendor lock-in

[deleted]

Re: WasmEdge

#69

Post by supermatt »

syrusakbary wrote: post #68
supermatt wrote: post #65

How does this compare to wasmtime, wasmer, etc? Why would I choose one over the other?

I've just created a new comparison page analyzing the main differences, hope this helps! https://wasmer.io/wasmer-vs-wasmedge

While I appreciate your comparison pages for highlighting the strengths of wasmer, they really do avoid talking about any of the metrics where wasmer isnt top performer. IMHO this doesnt really give me the information I need to make a decision.

For example, the wasmedge website claims it is the fastest runtime but I notice that your comparison page doesnt mention runtime performance at all. It would be nice to know how much slower is wasmer in that respect.

I feel that if wasmer covered things like this in the comparisons, and was highlighting that its only X% slower (even though thats a negative) I could balance the positives accordingly when making a decision about which runtime to choose.

There doesnt seem to be anywhere that provides an unbiased comparison. Maybe wasmer could lead the charge in that respect?

Re: WasmEdge

#70

Post by syrusakbary »

supermatt wrote: post #69
syrusakbary wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've just created a new comparison page analyzing the main differences, hope this helps! https://wasmer.io/wasmer-vs-wasmedge

While I appreciate your comparison pages for highlighting the strengths of wasmer, they really do avoid talking about any of the metrics where wasmer isnt top performer. IMHO this doesnt really give me the information I need to make a decision. For example, the wasmedge website claims it is the fastest runtime but I notice that your comparison page doesnt mention runtime performance at all. It would be nice to know h…

> For example, the wasmedge website claims it is the fastest runtime but I notice that your comparison page doesnt mention runtime performance at all. It would be nice to know how much slower is wasmer in that respect.

The places where there are no differences between runtimes are not showcased in the shared page intentionally.

Runtime performance it's not hidden because Wasmer is slower, it's hidden because there should be little difference on runtime performance between both runtimes. But just to be clear, Wasmer (when used with LLVM) should be as fast (if not faster) than WasmEdge on runtime performance.

As a random fact: Wasmer 3.0 uses zero-copy deserialization mechanisms that are not yet implemented by any other runtime. So I bet my horses that Wasmer running a pre-compiled Wasm module is not just at-level with WasmEdge but probably faster :)

> There doesnt seem to be anywhere that provides an unbiased comparison. Maybe wasmer could lead the charge in that respect?

This is a great suggestion, actually.

Post reply on HN