firecracker-container VS lxd

There is this project, which I have never used, but seems promising. https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker-container...

How does that compare to firecracker-containerd?

https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker-container...

This repository enables the use of a container runtime, containerd, to manage Firecracker microVMs. Like traditional containers, Firecracker microVMs offer fast start-up and shut-down and minimal overhead. Unlike traditional containers, however, they can provide an additional layer of isolation via the KVM hypervisor.

I'm really impressed by fly.io, and the candidness with which they share some of their really awesome technology. Being container-first is the next step for PaaS IMO and they are ahead of the pack.

I aim to build a platform like theirs someday (probably not any time soon) but I don't think I'd do any of what they're doing -- it feels unnecessary. Bear with me as I recently learned that they use nomad[0] and some of these suggestions are kubernetes projects but I'd love to hear why the following technologies were decided against (if they were):

- kata-containers[1] (it does the whole container -> VM flow for you, automatically, nemu, firecracker) with multiple VMM options[2]

- linuxkit[3] (let's say you didn't go with kata-containers, this is another container->VM path)

- firecracker-containerd[4] (very minimal keep-your-container-but-run-it-as-a-VM)

- kubevirt[5] (if you just want to actually run VMs, regardless of how you built them)

- Ceph[6] for storage -- make LVM pools and just give them to Ceph, you'll get blocks, distributed filesystems (CephFS), and object gateways (S3/Swift) out of it (in the k8s space Rook manages this)

As an aside to all this, there's also LXD, which supports running "system" (user namespace isolated) containers, VMs (somewhat recent[7][8]), live migration via criu[9], management/migration of underlying filesystems, runs on LVM or zfs[10], it's basically all-in-one, but does fall behind in terms of ecosystem since everyone else is aboard the "cloud native"/"works-with-kubernetes" train.

I've basically how I plan to run a service like fly.io if I ever did -- so maybe my secret is out, but I sure would like to know just how much of this fly.io got built on (if any of it), and/or what was turned down.

[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26745514

[1]: https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers

[2]: https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers/blob/2fc7...

[3]: https://github.com/linuxkit/linuxkit

[4]: https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker-container...

[5]: https://github.com/kubevirt/kubevirt

[6]: https://docs.ceph.com/

[7]: https://discuss.linuxcontainers.org/t/running-virtual-machin...

[8]: https://github.com/lxc/lxd/issues/6205

[9]: https://criu.org/Main_Page

[10]: https://linuxcontainers.org/lxd/docs/master/storage

The expected changes are: - https://github.com/lxc/lxd will now become https://github.com/canonical/lxd - https://linuxcontainers.org/lxd will disappear and be replaced with a mention directing users to https://ubuntu.com/lxd - The LXD YouTube channel will be handed over to the Canonical team - The LXD section on the LinuxContainers community forum will slowly be sunset in favor of the Ubuntu Discourse forum run by Canonical - The LXD CI infrastructure will be moved under Canonical’s care - Image building for Linux Containers will no longer be relying on systems provided by Canonical, limiting image building to x86_64 and aarch64.

Hello community, it seems LXC images for arm7l/armhf are no longer available, not from the official Turris mirror nor from LinuxContainers.org (https://linuxcontainers.org/lxd/). Any solution or alternative for people like me heavily relying on the Turris Omnia to run LXC containers? Thanks.

here you go idiot down voters https://github.com/lxc/lxd/issues/10470