Repository navigation
discussion: qemu microvm as a provider on linux? #19
Description
Hey,
I wonder why Firecracker was chosen for the Linux backend over QEMU. Would QEMU microvm make sense here, especially since it could give us live virtiofs worktrees and potentially simpler gvproxy integration while still keeping a minimal KVM VM?
I'm happy to try and come up with a quick PoC.
Activity
[-]Qemu microvm as a provider on Linux?[/-][+]discussion: Qemu microvm as a provider on Linux?[/+][-]discussion: Qemu microvm as a provider on Linux?[/-][+]discussion: qemu microvm as a provider on Linux?[/+][-]discussion: qemu microvm as a provider on Linux?[/-][+]discussion: qemu microvm as a provider on linux?[/+]celrenheit commentedon Sep 16, 2026
Hey, that's a good suggestion, the attack surface seems to be bigger with qemu microvm that with firecracker but rootless nature is attractive. I'll look into that when I have time
kaplan-michael commentedon Sep 27, 2026
Makes sense, I'll try a PoC and see how it goes