[repelsteeltje]

> considering you would still need to boot the VMs then, once the Oxide system is up, I’m not sure if this is such a big win.

To be honoust, I'm using containers most of the time these days but even the full blown windows VMs I'm orchestrating boot in less than 20s, assuming the hypervisor is operational. I think that's about on par with public cloud, no?

> [...] vMotion [...] ESXi.

Is VMware still a thing? Started with virsh, kvm/qemu a decade ago and never looked back.

> And, economics of elasticity - you’d still have to buy the Oxide server, even if it’s idle.

That's a big part of the equation indeed. This is where hyperscalers have an advantage that Oxide at some point in the future might enjoy as well. Interesting to see how much of that they will be willing to share with their customers...

[steve1977]

Re VMware, it’s certainly still a thing in enterprise environments. Can kvm do things like live migration in the meantime? For me it’s the other way round, haven’t looked into that for a while ;)

How do you mean Oxide might have that advantage as well in the future? As I understand, you have to buy hardware from them?

[repelsteeltje]

Ah yes live migration, off course. We design "ephemeral" applications that scale horizontally and use load balancer to migrate. With 99% of traffic serviced from CDN cache updates and migrations have a very different set of challenges.

As to your question, I meant to say that as volumes and scales economies increase they can source materials far cheaper than regular shops. Possibly similar to AWS, gcs, Azure, akamai etc. It would be nice if they were able and willing to translate some of those scales economies into prices commensurate with comparable public cloud instances.