3 ms·
Given what you've described, I think you might be interested to look further at Irmin [1]. It's not quite ready for prime-time but certainly stable enough to ki
by amirmc 12y ago
Given what you've described, I think you might be interested to look further at Irmin [1]. It's not quite ready for prime-time but certainly stable enough to kick the tires.
Regarding commercial uptake, the nice thing about the library approach is that companies get to pick and choose the components they want (without even going 'full Unikernel'). For example, I'm aware of the cohttp library having commercial users. The real issue is legacy code but I mostly sidestep that when I write (but we're well aware of it).
Interesting that you mention MirageOS in containers. I don't see any reason the two can't be compatible but it would good to hear more about what you'd like to achieve (or how you'd expect it to be in terms of workflow).
[1] http://openmirage.org/blog/introducing-irmin http://openmirage.org/blog/introducing-irmin (I think it's time we put together an overview page with all the links).
- josh2600 12y agoSo the overall goal is to reduce the footprint of each users machine/application as much as possible within a larger aggregated pool of resources. I see Unikernel as one potential way of reducing the amount storage/memory each user or application needs. With containers, you can do RAM deduplication under some circumstances, and you can get a lot higher resource utilization doing that, but I think we can always do better, and so that's kinda why I have my eye on unikernels (also because unikernel seems like a reasonable way of squeezing more performance out of systems in some cases).