[ryao]

I suspect that the performance of a unikernel on a hypervisor vs an application on a POSIX system is somewhat analogous to the performance of hardware RAID vs ZFS. The performance of the abstraction used in the former is inherently worse than the performance of the abstraction used in the latter. The example of memory partitioning gives the latter a price/performance advantage and it is not the only one. I would be happy to be proven wrong though.

[brendangregg]

Strawman. Lets talk about Xen and Unikernels. So you said:

> You stand to eliminate much more overhead from eliminating the hypervisor than you stand from eliminating the syscalls.

So my hypervisor application talks directly to devices, thanks to pass-through. What's that about syscalls again?

[ryao]

It is not just syscalls. You either have inefficiency from double caching or inefficiency from a lack of a global page replacement algorithm. You also have internal fragmentation from memory partitioning, which prevents you from running as many applications and/or reduces memory available for cache. I consider these to be fundamental disadvantages.

[brendangregg]

> You either have inefficiency from double caching

No double caching: most of our applications have an in-memory working set, and no disk state. Some do (eg, Cassandra databases).

> from a lack of a global page replacement algorithm

Oh, so it's more efficient to be running where paging (aka swapping) is allowed? Sure, for memory footprint, but for runtime performance you're banking on it reaching a state where paging is minimal. The amount of memory saved is depending on the working set, maybe a lot, maybe a little. One downside is you're paying a small CPU tax to manage this (maintaining kswapd lists, and scanning them).

I think this would sometimes be a benefit, and sometimes not. And if not, is there anything stopping a Unikernel -- which must manage its own memory anyway -- from implementing its own pager?

The inefficiency isn't technical resources, but human resources: having Unikernel engineers reinvent what modern kernels already do.

> You also have internal fragmentation from memory partitioning, which prevents you from running as many applications and/or reduces memory available for cache.

Again, usually no file system cache in use. And most apps are started with a fixed heap size that consumes all of memory. There's no left-over/wasted memory that could be used by other apps.

If you want to page out cold memory to make room, uh, sure, but see previous comment. I bet that sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't.

[ryao]

> No double caching: most of our applications have an in-memory working set, and no disk state. Some do (eg, Cassandra databases).

I see no disadvantage for unikernel on hypervisor setups versus applications on a container host setups in applications where there is no disk state. However, I see no advantage either. The techniques used to talk to hardware directly work in userland too. netmap is a fantastic example of this.

I had expected unikernels on hypervisors to have a disadvantage against a container on a traditional kernel, but after reading your remarks, I think that the two ought to perform identically (at least where there is no file system IO), with neither being theoretically better. However, the world is adopting containers in traditional kernels and unless a unikernel on a hypervisor can be better, I do not see much value in devoting resources to unikernels too.

> Oh, so it's more efficient to be running where paging (aka swapping) is allowed? Sure, for memory footprint, but for runtime performance you're banking on it reaching a state where paging is minimal. The amount of memory saved is depending on the working set, maybe a lot, maybe a little. One downside is you're paying a small CPU tax to manage this (maintaining kswapd lists, and scanning them).

I was referencing cache efficiency when I talked about page replacement algorithms rather than paging to disk. Imagine a global ARC algorithm in a traditional system versus each unikernel having its own. The global hit rate would be better with a global algorithm than it would be with a local algorithm in each unikernel.

Even if your application does its own cache, the principle of a global algorithm being best ought to apply to filesystem metadata.

> Again, usually no file system cache in use. And most apps are started with a fixed heap size that consumes all of memory. There's no left-over/wasted memory that could be used by other apps.

This is not the sort of application that I had in mind. I am still skeptical that unikernels are better, but I agree that they are not worse here. In this case, it seems to me that they are (theoretically) just a different way of doing things and are not better or worse.

[eru]

> However, the world is adopting containers in traditional kernels and unless a unikernel on a hypervisor can be better, I do not see much value in devoting resources to unikernels too.

Unikernels allow more experimentation. The interface that the hypervizor provides is generally lower level (especially with hardware passthrough) than the traditional operating system's interface.

Unikernel 'programs' would normally use a library as an abstraction layer to bridge the gap. These libraries are easier to swap and change and experiment with than traditional OSs. (At least that was the whole justification for exokernels in the 90s, the approach our current hypervisors grew out of.)

[ryao]

That is nice, but it is very different than the statements of unikernels being more secure from being smaller and being more performant that I have heard lately. The more I learn about unikernels, the more I think these are false promises.

By the way, I am a fan of rumpkernels, which also offer the ability to do experimentation. Rumprun is apparently a unikernel design, while rump kernels are building blocks. Rump kernels need not be used in unikernels. They can be used in whatever you want them to be, with unikernels being one place that they can go.