Firecracker vs. OpenVZ

While deploying workloads in lightweight microVMs presents a couple of perks, Firecracker may not be the best software to handle this. Startup times are slow and scalability is quite limited because of the jailer and virtualization barriers. We have had security breaches on isolated EC2 instances while using Firecracker. It however has a silver lining by improving how serverless functions in container ecosystems are run with their VMMs.

Incentivized

If you are considering to use Docker and Kubernetes then you can give a try to OpenVZ and Proxmox. It is a good alternative and it is as good as Docker and Kubernetes

Incentivized

• It makes it easy to secure virtual machines as they are segmented into microvms with a minimal attack surface area

Incentivized

• It is container-based virtualization
• It is not resource-heavy
• It is better then KVM

Incentivized

• Excludes devices unnecessarily
• Has a slow startup time the basis being to improve security which is quite irrelevant.
• It has limited functionalities on monitoring VMs despite being an open source.

Incentivized

• Since it is a container-based solution, you can't run any other OS, except for Linux
• It is not so popular as Docker, but it's not that bad

Incentivized

Kubernetes and Docker are de-facto standards today, but I think that OpenVZ and Proxmox are better solutions

Incentivized

• Low memory overhead on each microVM
• We can run workloads from different customers on the same machine.

Incentivized

• It's free, so you can try it and figure out if it suited for your needs

Incentivized