nanos VS osv

I am a bit confused, there are three sites:

* https://nanos.org/

* https://nanovms.com/

* https://ops.city/

And I am not sure what "thing" I am using. Is there some disambiguation? I know is OPS is the orchestration CLI, but I am confused at the difference between Nanos and NanoVMs. What should I call the section of my README that deals with this tech? Currently gone with Nanos/OPS but I am confused.

I work with https://nanos.org && https://ops.city - we can run thousands of these on commodity hardware.

Unik was just a build tool that utilized other projects like Rump, Mirage, IncludeOS, etc. It's now dead since Solo pivoted a very long time ago to service mesh/api gateways.

The GoRump port they use was from us and then we realized we needed to code our own from the ground up for many reasons so we wrote https://nanos.org (runs as a go unikernel in GCP).

A couple unikernel projects that caught my eye in the past may be of interest to you. I have no experience with them, so I can't speak to their quality though.

https://unikraft.org/

https://github.com/nanovms/nanos

Definitely agree with the top part, however, I should note that, ops, the tool's, whole existence is to create disk images and upload them to any cloud, any hypervisor.

In particular, both https://ops.city && https://nanos.org are Go unikernels running on GCP and their deploys take just a few seconds to push out. AWS can be even faster cause we skip the s3 upload part. We also have lots of people using Azure which would be utilizing vhdx.

I'm with that organization that works on https://nanos.org and https://ops.city . If you aren't a software engineer but still would like to use unikernels you're in luck - we also have a package repository at https://repo.ops.city/ (running as a go unikernel on GCP) that will allow you to run and deploy pre-made applications. If you don't see something that you'd like to us there's also a way of importing docker containers into unikernels via ops which works for most (but not all) applications.

I think Unikernels like NanoVMs (https://nanos.org/) will become more important. They are more efficient and more secure than than full operating systems. Right now, I think there are no good monitoring solutions available (or at least I am not aware of any). You can't just ssh to your server, so if something goes wrong, it can be hard to debug. And they are certainly not integrated into bigger monitoring solutions like Dynatrace. But once the infrastructure is available, I would expect a large percentage of Linux servers to be replaced with unikernels.

I've been looking at a few.

https://github.com/cloudius-systems/osv

https://ops.city/ (also nanovms) - this is one that I actually got working to at least demo state

I have also found OSv to be interesting.

https://osv.io/

Wow, just now seeing this topic. I work for a cloud company hosted in AWS. We started out, Netflix/Spotify style microservices. We were all on ec2 images generate by packer (and later with AWS Image Factory). When Docker hit, we kicked the tires but never did anything with it beyond using it for running unit tests, and later, infrastructure tests. 5 years ago, during a hackathon, our little group began experimenting with Unikernels, or library operating systems. Interestingly enough, these Unikernels were all stripped down BSD kernels. OSv is FreeBSD based, and Rumprun is NetBSD based. Services running in EC2 on Unikernels would spin up and start sending and receiving traffic before the AWS EC2 healthchecks completed. They are blazing fast! Only problem in 2017, was the tooling. It would have taken too much effort to use Unikernals with our infrastructure. As soon as they start making Unikernels that can run Java bytecode like native code, the fate of containerization will be sealed, IMO. We could get basic JVM webservers running on OSv, but not Cassandra, not Kafka, not yet. OSv now runs on Firecracker, but I have not tried it out, yet. Some links if you are interested: OSv: https://osv.io Rumprun: https://github.com/rumpkernel/rumprun We used this tooling during the Hackathon, but doesn't look like it has been touched in 3 years: https://github.com/solo-io/unik Unikraft Unikernel Dev kit: https://unikraft.org/ And don't forget Firecracker running in Kubernetes https://www.weave.works/oss/firekube/ And of course, being a FreeBSD subreddit, let's not forget FreeBSD on Firecracker https://www.daemonology.net/blog/2022-10-18-FreeBSD-Firecracker.html

Whats the difference to OSv?

https://github.com/cloudius-systems/osv

OSv Unikernel — Optimizing Guest OS to Run Stateless and Serverless Apps in the Cloud — Waldek Kozaczuk [OSv Committer] Unikernels have been demonstrated to deliver excellent performance in terms of throughput and latency, while providing high isolation. However they have also been shown to underperform in some types of workloads when compared to a generic OS like Linux. In this presentation, we demonstrate that certain types of workloads - web servers, microservices, and other stateless and/or serverless apps - can greatly benefit from OSv optimized networking stack and other features. We describe number of experiments where OSv outperforms Linux guest: most notably we note 1.6 throughput (req/s) and 0.6 latency improvement (at p99 percentile) when running nginx and 1.7 throughput (req/s) and 0.6 latency improvement (at p99 percentile) when running simple microservice implemented in Golang. We also show that OSv' small kernel, low boot time and memory consumption allow for very high density when running server-less workloads. The experiment described in this presentation shows we can boot 1,800 OSv microVMs per second on AWS c5n.metal machine with 72 CPUs (25 boots/sec on single CPU) with guest boot time recorded as low as 8.98ms at p50 and 31.49ms at p99 percentile respectively. Lastly we also demonstrate how to automate the build process of the OSv kernel tailored exactly to the specific app and/or VMM so that only the code and symbols needed are part of the kernel and nothing more. OSv is an open source project and can be found at https://github.com/cloudius-systems/osv.

I guess you could have a JVM like that, but not OpenJDK. There is, however, a unikernel that supports running itself and OpenJDK in the same process: http://osv.io/

> Oracle used to offer an installation mode like this

Oracle, and BEA before them, used to offer a JVM which ran on top of a thin custom OS designed only to host the JVM, you could call it a "unikernel". Product was called JRockit Virtual Edition (JRVE), WebLogic Server Virtual Edition (WLS-VE, when used to run WebLogic), earlier BEA called it LiquidVM. The internal name for that thin custom OS was in fact "Bare Metal". Similar in concept to https://github.com/cloudius-systems/osv but completely different implementation

I think one thing which caused a problem for it, is a lot of customers want to deploy various management tools to their VMs (security auditing software, performance monitoring software, etc) and when your VM runs a custom OS that becomes very difficult or impossible. So adopting this product could lead to the pain of having to ask for exceptions to policies requiring those tools and then defending the decision to adopt it against those who use those policies to argue against it. I think this is part of why the product was discontinued.

Nowadays, Oracle offers "bare metal servers" [1] – which are just hypervisor-less servers, same as other cloud vendors do. Or similarly, "Oracle Database Appliance Bare Metal System" [2] – which just means not installing a hypervisor on your Oracle Database Appliance.

So Oracle seems to have a history of using the phrase "bare metal" in both the senses being discussed here.

[1] https://www.oracle.com/cloud/compute/bare-metal.html

[2] https://docs.oracle.com/en/engineered-systems/oracle-databas...