4 ms·
Oddly, they don't seem to support or want the providers to be running VMs. That moves it out of "idle hardware" into "dedicated hardware" territory right there.
by seized 6y ago
Oddly, they don't seem to support or want the providers to be running VMs. That moves it out of "idle hardware" into "dedicated hardware" territory right there. I can dedicate a VM as I can restrict that VMs resource limits, network access, and it's separate from my processes. But even if I had bare metal servers that weren't running VMware, Solaris, FreeBSD I'm certainly not going to let their provider service run on my hardware next to whatever else is on there that's mine.
My idle compute resources all run VMWare.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- AgentME 6y agoI think it's because some configurations of Golem use virtualization features to sandbox individual workloads, and some platforms have limitations around VMs-in-VMs.
- jacoblambda 6y agoThis is definitely my biggest issue at the moment. I understand the intent is to make it easy to port software to support it but I dislike the method none-the-less. I'd much prefer they provide a constrained environment and dedicated compilers (or compiler extensions). At least that way the code can be sandboxed in such a way that you don't have to worry about what it's actually doing. Honestly with the types of tasks they are targetting, a purely functional or algorithmic language requirement would serve them well. For example, I would be far more comfortable if they were using something like [Halide](https://halide-lang.org/ https://halide-lang.org/) with some static analysis to deny any low level fuckery. At least that way the providers could have a reasonable assurance that they aren't going to accidentally unleash some malicious code onto their system.
- AgentME 6y agoThey support WASM-based workloads that are inherently very sandboxed by design (and have other benefits like being architecture agnostic).