init-snapshot VS firecracker-container

At CodeSandbox we use Firecracker to run our VMs (more info here: https://codesandbox.io/blog/how-we-clone-a-running-vm-in-2-s...).

To answer the questions:

> what version of the kernel do you use (the github page says 5.10 but isn't that quite old?)

Right, they have tested with 5.10, but it also works with higher kernel versions. Our host currently runs 5.19 and we're planning to upgrade to 6.1 soon. The guest runs 5.15.63, we use a config very similar to the recommended config by FC team (it's in the FC repo). It's important to mention that we had to disable async pagefaulting (a KVM feature) with more modern kernel versions, as VMs could get stuck waiting for an PF resolve.

> What do you use to build the 'micro' images

We created a CLI that creates a rootfs from a Docker image. It pulls the image, creates a container and then extracts the fs from it to an ext4 disk. For the init, we forked the open sourced init from the Fly team (https://github.com/superfly/init-snapshot) and changed/added some functionality.

> How do you keep timesync of you're not using a timesync daemon?

IIRC we expose the time as a PTP device (handled by kvm) and run phc2sys to sync the time in an interval. Firecracker has some documentation on this, where it recommends chrony. It can also be done with vsock, but it would be more manual.

> Handle kernel and app logs without adding an log daemon, and same through vsocks, etc?

The init forwards stdout/stderr of the command it runs to its own stdout, which Firecracker then logs out by itself. A supervisor reads these and writes the logs to files.

Unless they’ve changed things, there is no containerization within the VM a la kata. They run their own custom init inside the VM and use it to start the entry point. https://github.com/superfly/init-snapshot is the source.

Jerome wrote our init in Rust, and, after being cajoled by Josh Triplett, [we released the code (https://github.com/superfly/init-snapshot), which you can go read.

> Fly.io transforms container images into fleets of micro-VMs running around the world on our hardware.

Oh boy!

> None of us have ever worked for Google, let alone as SREs. So we’re going out on a limb

Oh.... boy.

> We spent some time scaling it with Thanos, and Thanos was a lot, as far as ops hassle goes.

You know, they have these companies now, that will collect your metrics for you, so that you don't have to deal with ops hassle.

Holy shit. I see they even wrote their own init... in Rust. Yes, the thing that is normally a shell script, is now a compiled program in a new language, that mostly just runs mkdir(), mount() and ethtool(). (https://github.com/superfly/init-snapshot/blob/public/src/bi...)

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