3 ms·
'kdrag0n wrote here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36189550 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36189550 that Virtualization.framework isn't really much
by depr 3y ago
'kdrag0n wrote here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36189550 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36189550 that Virtualization.framework isn't really much better than QEMU. What do you think?
- smcleod 3y agoPersonally I find Vzf faster with less resource overhead than QEMU, but I've had some issues when running nodejs applications inside it (specifically when using the vz backend on colima).
- saagarjha 3y agoVirtualization uses the same Hypervisor backend that QEMU does. There’s not much difference in compute performance, and devices depend on the quality of their drivers.
- kdrag0n 3y agoI do think Virtualization.framework is generally better overall, for what it's worth — just not the panacea that people make it out to be sometimes :) My main point was that Apple has few inherent advantages over third-party VMMs like QEMU; it just happens to be better than the current off-the-shelf alternatives. (Apple's restrictions around Rosetta and private ISA extensions are an exception, making it significantly less appealing to use anything else in practice.) If not for Rosetta I would've most likely written (or at least made plans to write) a custom VMM forked from an OSS one for OrbStack. My early experiments have shown that quite a few improvements are possible.