> They're pinning memory to VMs in their FaaS infrastructure, which in turn is memory consumed on their physical servers The paper doesn't say this anywhere. T

> They're pinning memory to VMs in their FaaS infrastructure, which in turn is memory consumed on their physical servers The paper doesn't say this anywhere. There is no reason why idle VM could not release significant amount of its memory, or it to be paged on disk, or some hybrid in-between. Especially in Linux you have this whole virtual memory, disk cache, and memory mappings tightly coupled together so there is all sorts of things that could happen. It would be naive to just assume that a VM uses some static amount of memory, especially when the paper doesn't actually indicate anything like that. > This relatively small amount of memory per VM becomes enormous at tens-of-millions-per-second scale. Not really. a single firecracker vm has memory overhead of <5MB. even thousand VMs on a host is still just few gigabytes of overhead, not exactly enormous. Its very unlikely that they have anywhere near thousand VMs on single host. > The resources are pinned to the memory by the first function initialisation, so that if there's a second request for the same Function, it can be executed on a pre-warmed VM, without going through the time-consuming steps 1-7. A trade-off between memory-consumption and time, both cost money. That just explains why you want to have the VM running, not why you'd have some fixed resources pinned on them. They are two very different things. And it especially doesn't explain why you'd stop the VM on time basis instead of e.g. based on memory pressure. Honestly, this feels like talking to AI. Not sure why you fill your comments with elementary basics of FaaS and making a whole lot of unfounded assumptions, while not really giving much of any real substance.