3 ms·
Note that this Amazon developed technology does not work on Amazon Web Services instances. It does however work on Google, Azure and Digital Ocean instances wh
by andrewstuart 5y ago
Note that this Amazon developed technology does not work on Amazon Web Services instances.
It does however work on Google, Azure and Digital Ocean instances where you can configure nested virtualisation.
- cptnntsoobv 5y agoIt works on AWS's metal instances, doesn't it? That is definitely a constraint though, as the smallest available metal instances are pretty large, hence costly on a per instance basis.
- oneearedrabbit 5y agoTechnically speaking you are right. If you are not limited to AWS, then even a $5 DigitalOcean instance is be able to host 4-5 VMs.
- paxys 5y agoIt does work on AWS on the instances that support nested virtualization, same as every other provider.
- cutemonster 5y ago> does not work on Amazon Web Services instances Why not? And what is Google, Azure and DI doing differently
- jsolson 5y agoFirecracker relies on KVM in the Linux kernel which relies on VT-x or similar. Offering VT-x inside a VM that's already using VT-x is called nested virtualization. EC2 VMs do not support nested virtualization, while others do. That said, it works fine on EC2 Bare Metal instances. (n.b., I work on the virtualization stack on Google Compute Engine)
- bushbaba 5y agoWouldn’t you want to run firecracker on bare metal anyways. Nested VMs come with a decent perf hit.
- cutemonster 5y agoThanks @jsolson for explaining @bushbaba I wonder how large the percentage hit could be, if it's like 1% or 10%, if you happen to know And how that percentage hit compares with gvisor performance wise