Run isolated sandboxes with full lifecycle control: AWS introduces MicroVMs

Re:Run isolated sandboxes with full lifecycle control: AWS i... by spockz on Friday June 26, 2026 @02:29PM (#48690196)

Microsandbox claims to start faster than docker, and it is isolated from the host, and to work with OCI. Why would I still want to use docker? The only reason I can imagine is that I actually want to be able to dynamically share resources between containers instead of dividing up VMs a priori.

Ah, the significant compute overhead: https://josecastillolema.github.io/podman-wasm-libkrun/. Much more cpu and ram usage at worse performance.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Run isolated sandboxes with full lifecycle control: AWS i... by NamlchakKhandro on Friday June 26, 2026 @10:41PM (#48694628)

Starting faster than a container will need evidence since starting a container on Linux is basically instant.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Run isolated sandboxes with full lifecycle control: AWS i... by spockz on Saturday June 27, 2026 @02:59AM (#48695861)

It is instant for me when using podman but by no means instant when using docker. Docker on Linux native is stay way faster than on macOS and Windows. But so far running with podman has the lowest overhead I have seen.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Run isolated sandboxes with full lifecycle control: AWS i... by mikeocool on Friday June 26, 2026 @11:15PM (#48694790)

> dynamically share resources

This has been a big pain point me with various VM solutions I’ve tried. Having to allocate say 8GB to a sandbox, and a) having that RAM eaten up when I’m not using it and b) only having 8GB when I am using kinda sucks.

Yes, I could stop the sandboxes when I’m not using them, but that also kinda sucks.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Run isolated sandboxes with full lifecycle control: AWS i... by happens on Saturday June 27, 2026 @03:22AM (#48695985)

The performance difference in that post is due to wasm, not the container runtime, which is also stated at the end of the post.

[ Parent | on HN ]