"OSv supports many managed language runtimes including unmodified JVM, Python 2 and 3, Node.JS, Ruby, Erlang as well as languages compiling directly to native machine code like Golang and Rust"
This seems like a big deal on the Nanos side:
"Another big difference is that Nanos keeps the kernel/user boundary. In our testing removing the large process to process context switching that general purpose operating systems still removes quite a lot of the perceived cost in other systems. We keep the internal kernel <> user switch for security purposes. Without it page protections are basically useless as an attacker can adjust the permissions themselves with privileged instructions."
This would seem to me that they are slower than OSv.
nanos is recently written for this particular use case and uses lwip for networking
osv looks like FreeBSD with some machinery around it to package single applications and run them on boot
Just because ZFS? Because everything else is not from BSD's, it's a unikernel made to run on a hypervisor made to run linux-bin's, i really don't see a difference....or any plus to use nanos.
didn't suggest that nanos was better - if it does indeed use big hunks of freebsd code, that's had considerably more cooking time than nanos.
ZFS is optional.
Show me that.
There is one little bsd folder that's it:
https://github.com/cloudius-systems/osv/tree/master/bsd
Absolutely nothing written about BSD:
https://github.com/cloudius-systems/osv