BT

Facilitating the Spread of Knowledge and Innovation in Professional Software Development

Write for InfoQ

Topics

Choose your language

InfoQ Homepage Presentations Better Serverless Computing with WebAssembly

Better Serverless Computing with WebAssembly

Bookmarks
47:16

Summary

William Overton discusses why WebAssembly is the next big step on the journey to computing at the edge, the Compute@Edge platform, and developments in the WASM ecosystem (WASI & Component Model).

Bio

William Overton is a Senior Serverless Solutions Architect at Fastly where he’s working on the future of edge computing. His main focuses are helping customers adopt (and get excited about) WebAssembly and Serverless Computing.

About the conference

QCon Plus is a virtual conference for senior software engineers and architects that covers the trends, best practices, and solutions leveraged by the world's most innovative software organizations.

Transcript

Overton: My name is William Overton. I'm a Senior Serverless Solutions Architect at Fastly. About 10 years ago, Fastly was founded with a clear vision in mind, and that was to create a platform that enables developers to move data and applications to the edge. We created a type of CDN that didn't really exist at the time. A big differentiator was that we gave developers control like no other CDN before us. With traditional CDNs, config changes could take over an hour to propagate globally. That was just simply not acceptable for modern applications where things can change often, and they can change very quickly. When we launched, we handed developers instant config rollout, and fine-grained precision into how their services worked.

How Does All This Work?

How did it all work? Our delivery platform is based on Varnish, which is configured via VCL. Varnish is a caching HTTP proxy, not unique to Fastly. It is something similar to Nginx. It is able to serve HTTP requests with custom responses based on config provided by our customers. This is what VCL looks like, or the Varnish Configuration Language. It works like a normal programming language, and it allows developers to have conditional logic, and still request metadata such as headers, and also control their configuration as code rather than huge XML files or magic buttons of the UI. It's awesome. Fastly customers have been able to do things that they simply couldn't do before, such as A/B testing, advanced caching, edge redirects, and authentication at the edge, and a lot more as well. It can be limited. In VCL, there's no for-loops. There's also no recursion, and this can limit the sorts of applications that developers can build at the edge. There's also no access to the body. Say you wanted to manipulate some JSON going through an API, or change some HTML, you can't do it with VCL. There's only one language, VCL. If a developer wants to use something else, they simply can't.

What Is the Next Gen of Edge Computing?

What does the next generation of edge computing look like? First, we need to look at the requirements. What are the things that we want to include in our new platform? The first thing is, what languages should we support? We want to support every language possible, so that we can have the best developer ecosystem, you don't have to learn new tools just to use the platform, and to have a wide market. Where should the code run? Everywhere. We don't want to have our platform be so heavy that it has to run in fewer larger data centers.

What about latency? It needs to be really quick. If we're going to be adding latency into the flow of HTTP requests through our platform, that would be a real problem.

Containers

What are the options? Containers. Containers are great. They're incredibly versatile, and already very popular and well understood. However, they're just too heavy for what we want to do. The infrastructure needed for every service in Fastly to live inside a container is ridiculous. We'll be talking about hundreds of thousands of containers across that platform. Not only is that incredibly CPU intensive, managing all of them will be a very difficult task. They're also not as secure as many people believe. There have been plenty of Docker escape vulnerabilities over the years. In order to mitigate that and run containers securely, we'd also end up having to run thousands of virtual machines. That simply won't work.

V8/Node.js

What about V8, or Node.js? V8 is an incredibly popular choice for building a serverless compute platform. It has plenty of benefits such as already being really popular. However, V8 only supports one language, JavaScript. While being an incredibly popular language, it's not always fit for purpose for every use case. Imagine you're doing some intense cryptography or image processing. There are better languages for that. Also, while V8 can start quite quickly, it still has a noticeable enough delay for new invocations. That means that in order to serve lots of requests, we would end up having to reuse instances. The problem with doing that is that a customer could accidentally leak state from one execution to the next, something a hacker could take and use to exfiltrate information.

WebAssembly (Wasm)

Then there's WebAssembly, or Wasm. WebAssembly is a binary instruction format for a stack based virtual machine. That sounds really complicated, but what that means is WebAssembly is something you can compile to. It's a compilation target. In the same way you can compile code to Windows or Linux, you can compile code to WebAssembly, and run that code anywhere that can run WebAssembly. What that means is we could take any language that compiles to WebAssembly and run it in our platform. We don't have to build a separate platform for JavaScript or for Python. There could be one unified system.

How do we actually run WebAssembly? WebAssembly was created for the browser, as a way for developers to do really performant processing, that it couldn't do with JavaScript, replacing deprecated systems like Java Applets and Flash. Early on in the development of WebAssembly, it was realized that WebAssembly would also be useful outside the browser. All of the specifications were made outside the browser, friendly. This led to server based WebAssembly runtimes being created.

Lucet

Lucet is a native WebAssembly compiler and runtime created by Fastly. It was designed to bring WebAssembly beyond the browser and build a platform for fast and safe execution of code in Fastly's edge cloud. Lucet was developed in Rust beginning in about 2017 and was built on top of Cranelift, the code generator, a project created by Mozilla for use in Firefox. Lucet was designed to separate the responsibility to executing WebAssembly into two components. The first one being the compiler. The compiler compiles WebAssembly modules into executable native machine code, for example, x86. Compiling WebAssembly into native code means no interpretation needs to be done at runtime. This gives us a lot of performance benefits. The compiler also makes sure that a given program is safe to run by guaranteed memory safety at compile time. The second part is the runtime. Now that WebAssembly modules are compiled to native machine code, running the modules is much simpler compared to a JIT style approach that you get with something like a JavaScript or a Python engine. This allows the runtime to start executing modules very quickly, and also eliminates a lot of the overhead.

The Bytecode Alliance - Wasmtime

You may have noticed I was saying Lucet was rather than is. What was the reason for that? When Fastly made Lucet, we knew it'd be useful beyond that platform. That's one of the reasons we formed the Bytecode Alliance, an open source community focused on improving WebAssembly, alongside Mozilla, Intel, Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and more. After the formation of the Bytecode Alliance, it turned out Mozilla had also been working on a WebAssembly compiler and a runtime called Wasmtime. Instead of separately working on two competing systems, the Bytecode Alliance decided to unite the two to get the best of both worlds. Recently, Lucet was end-of-life'd.

Everything I just told you about Lucet is still true, because all that logic was incorporated into Wasmtime.

Using Wasmtime. Say we want to run a small rustup like this in WebAssembly, rather than on the native system. All we need to do is use a toolchain native to that language. In this case, it's Rust, so we'll use the Rust commands. We'll run rustup to add the Wasm32-wasi target to our system, if we don't already have it yet, only needs to be done once on this system. Then we'll use rustc to compile our language into a WebAssembly file. Then, Wasmtime to run our code. Now we get the output in our console. It ran. It's fine. That code was executed as a WebAssembly rather than a native application.

What It Gives Us (Startup Time)

What does that give us? The first thing is a really fast startup time. If we look at containers, they're just simply not an option here, with how long they take to start up. The only way we could make this work is if we kept containers running for a long time to handle multiple requests. We don't want to do that from a security point of view. Ignoring that, we would also still have long startup delays with doing any scaling operation. Imagine we had 10 containers for a service, as soon as we needed 100, because of increased load, that will cause a lot of cold starts trying to scale. V8 is definitely respectable here, but WebAssembly is simply quicker. WebAssembly being so quick to start gives us a really powerful ability. That's that. We can run it anywhere. WebAssembly starts incredibly quickly, and is incredibly light to run. That means we can run customer code on our existing delivery platforms at the edge of the network, close to users. We don't need to have large data centers for compute like we would with containers or virtual machines. When the developer deploys code to Fastly, we can make it immediately global in every one of our points of presence.

Having code deployed globally means that it can run really close to users, and that gives us the ability to offload work from the client onto the server without any latency. For example, this application here on the left takes inputs from the user in the form of markdown, and then on the right renders HTML. "Every time I type! A request goes to the server!" You can see that, as I type, it looks like it's happening locally, it's that quick. If I open up the DevTools here, we can start making requests. See that all of these complete really quickly, probably the average time being 12 or 13 seconds. With this power, we can do things differently. If we have a phone app that might be on an underpowered device, but we still want to do processes that want to generate images, before, we'd have to go all the way to the origin to do that, or do it slowly on the device. Right now we can do it in the edge, which is still very close to the user, and certainly communication time is almost negligible. We can still run on a powerful environment, and also a known secure environment. A lot of the time we do logic in the origin, because we can't trust the client to do it. Now we have this middle ground in the edge inside the network, rather than in the origin or the client.

Another thing we can do, because that code is able to start so quickly, is actually write a CDN config in code. This is a framework over it called Flight Path. What it allows you to do is define routes and middleware that you want to run on requests. This is some example code for Flight Path. At the core of it, there's this router object. What that allows you to do is bind functions that will run under certain conditions. First, here, we have a router.use. That creates a middleware, which is a function that will run every time no matter the request. What we do here is simply add a header, which is the x-powered-by, and say FlightPath. Then after that, we have the router.get, then a path, a HTTP URL path, and then a function that will handle that request. The get in this function name is the HTTP method. This will trigger on a HTTP GET request to the route/. Our code will return the string Hello World as the response using res.send. Giving developers this power is really important. It used to be that CDN configuration and application code were handled by completely separate teams with different skills. With the rise of DevOps, we are seeing developers also be in control of their infrastructure. Allowing developers to configure the CDN in a language they're already experts in dramatically speeds up development time and allows for a lot more possibilities.

Languages Integrated by Fastly

There's something here that might surprise a few of you. This is JavaScript, and I've talked a lot about how our platform runs on WebAssembly. Let's talk more about languages. Here are the languages that Fastly has created a switch case for, documentation for, and gone through the whole process of implementing. Remember that any language that can compile down to WebAssembly can run in Fastly, but we need the SDKs for working with the outside world, like sending HTTP requests. However, here's the list of languages known to be working. The Zig SDK was created by someone at Fastly called Frank Denis, as an open source project. Swift, however, is different and really strengthens Fastly's belief in WebAssembly. The Swift SDK was made by one of our customers without our help, and is running in Fastly today.

What about JavaScript? We support JavaScript in our WebAssembly platform, which may surprise anyone who's spent a lot of time around WebAssembly. JavaScript cannot be compiled to WebAssembly because of its loose types, and plenty of other reasons. However, it's one of the most popular programming languages, especially on the web. We really want to support it. To get this to work, in some way, JavaScript needs to be turned into machine code. This is done by the JavaScript engine normally. However, our target environment is not a JavaScript engine, it's a WebAssembly engine. We can ship our code with a JavaScript Engine. JavaScript, we use SpiderMonkey, the JavaScript engine from Mozilla. We do this by compiling the engine down to WebAssembly, and bundling the developer code with it as one WebAssembly module. That sounds slow, starting a new JavaScript engine inside the WebAssembly module, every time we execute it without a noticeable startup delay. The same delay that we'd see with V8. However, we have a tool called Wizer. Wizer allows you to pre-initialize a WebAssembly module by executing parts of it at compile time, and snapshotting it, in the same way you could pause and snapshot a regular virtual machine.

If we go back to a JavaScript example, this is the Hello World application for Fastly. What we have is a function called handleRequest. It does some basic logic inside it, but the important part is at the bottom there, where we call addEventListener. What this does is it binds a listener to an event called fetch. That listener is a function, which is our handleRequest. The code here doesn't actually do anything, it receives that fetch event. That means we can actually run this at compile time. We can start the JavaScript engine, run code. Let it initialize, let it past the JavaScript initialize functions, bind to that fetch event, and then snapshot it in place with the JavaScript engine, ready to go. That's what this process looks like. We start JavaScript. We run JavaScript, and we wait for everything to be done. We wait for the fetch event to be found, and for all of the code to have finished running. At that point, we can snapshot it with Wizer. The snapshot that Wizer makes, is itself a valid WebAssembly module, which we can deploy to Fastly instead of the originally built one. That means that when we get to run a user service, the JavaScript is already initialized and running, like when pausing a virtual machine. We save all that work from startup time by doing it at the build time. Then when Fastly uses this module to serve a request, it's incredibly quick, because we don't have to go through that initialization phase.

How Do We Run Untrusted Code Safely?

I've talked for ages about how we can run WebAssembly code. I also want to cover some of the security benefits that WebAssembly gives us. All we are building is a platform where developers can write any code and run it in our platform on shared infrastructure. To do that, we need to be incredibly sure that we're running this code in a safe environment. I want to give a quick rundown of how a typical program does anything useful. Applications don't want to have to reinvent the wheel every time they do something on the system. If they want to read a file or draw to the screen, play music, they talk to the kernel. The kernel is what offers the APIs for the outside world as far as applications are concerned. This is useful because it means your note taking app doesn't have to include file system drivers for saving files. You can simply go, "Kernel, please put these bytes in a file called notes.txt," and it'll work. The problem with this is that the kernel can't know if something is malicious. If a program says, please give me the contents of this file and send it to this IP address. The kernel [inaudible 00:20:41]. This might be exactly what you want to happen, but could also be something we definitely do not want to happen, like in this example here. An application that you download, once it's running on your system, can't do anything. If you expect it to be that simple note taking app, but instead it decides to open your Bitcoin wallet and send it to an IP address, the Kernel is fine with that.

What about WebAssembly? WebAssembly is always sandboxed by default. This means there is no input or output of any kind, including stdin and stdout. That means you can run untrusted code safely, because all that code could do is spin CPU cycles doing maps. However, the important part is that WebAssembly is sandboxed by default. If we couldn't talk to the outside world in any way, WebAssembly wouldn't be very useful. The way you talk to the outside world is by using imported functions from the host environment. That means that a host environment could run some WebAssembly and offer it functions that it can use. Print to the screen, offer it a printing function. If your code isn't supposed to be reading or writing files, simply don't import those functions into the WebAssembly guest. Your application can read a notes file, but it can't open network connections.

This allows us to run completely untrusted code by giving it only the functions that we want it to have, and even defining what those functions are. We can give it known safe functions. If a library you were using suddenly goes rogue and starts including malicious code, it won't suddenly gain new capabilities. If you haven't given it permission to read and write files, even though the code has changed, it suddenly doesn't gain these permissions. In this example here, we have this malicious program that wants to read Bitcoins and send them over the wire. It can't because it simply doesn't have those permissions, even though the host environment does have those capabilities.

The Future of Wasm

What about the future for WebAssembly? What can we do with some of the new exciting things in the specifications? While we're talking about importing functions from the host, we should talk about WASI, the WebAssembly System Interface. The exciting thing about WASI is that it supplies a standard interface that languages can adopt, meaning your Rust app and your Go app can both interface with the host, in the same way when they need to talk to the system. This could be really useful because a language can implement WASI without the developer having to worry about it. Your code can read a file in a way that just works. It doesn't have to do it in the special way that the host environment is expecting.

One of the cool parts of WASI that I'm really excited about is that WASI doesn't define what the implementation of those functions are. They merely define the specification, meaning a call like read_file, doesn't have to actually go to disk. We could instead implement read_file to do anything. For example, read_file could instead go to a database. Instead of using some local disk storage, it instead goes to an external datastore. Meaning the WebAssembly module of the developer's code gets to think it's writing to the file system, when it's actually not. This is really important because it means that there's no vendor lock-in anymore. You don't have to use a proprietary API to interface with the host system. If you're running in Fastly, you wouldn't need a Fastly SDK. That means that code not made for Fastly will suddenly work in Fastly. It also means code that's running in Fastly would work in other places. That's the dream that Fastly is after. We want our competitors to adopt this technology, because that just means there's more developers using WebAssembly every day for building applications.

Components

The next thing I want to talk about is components. The WebAssembly component model is a way of building Wasm applications in small units that can be assembled together, just like how we use package ecosystems today. For JavaScript we have npm, for Rust we have Crates, Python we have PyPI, sort of in the same vein. Currently, when you're building an application, you can use libraries that are available in your language, and they will be compiled into your WebAssembly binary. This works fine, and no stain. If we were to make libraries themselves WebAssembly applications, we can do some really cool things. Here is an application built with WebAssembly components as libraries. You could write your application in JavaScript using your popular web framework, but then go to use Rust or Go libraries for CPU intensive tasks, such as cryptography or image processing. This allows developers to get the ease of use and huge ecosystem of a language like JavaScript, while still benefiting from the performance of a compiled language.

The ability to use multiple languages in one application, is also incredibly useful for multiple teams to collaborate. It might be that you have a team managing authentication that they really like Go, but your web team is working with JavaScript, and you want these teams to be able to work together. Typically, to do that nowadays you'd end up with a microservice approach, where they don't need to be different services, they could actually just be together, and you're only using microservices as a way for them to communicate. With language agnostic libraries, something WebAssembly components will bring us, you could instead just bundle them into an application and remove the complexity of handling all these different microservices.

Going a step further with this, WebAssembly components are portable, meaning they don't have to be included at compile time. They could instead be linked dynamically when you run the application. Any application could use WebAssembly components. For example, a database could use components instead of stored functions. If you're working with a database like MySQL, why don't you let developers write the code that runs inside the database, instead of using SQL? You don't have to have SQL experts in your Rust team to be able to use the system. We can take this onto websites, could use a Wasm code, instead of offering webhooks. It'll make it a lot easier to integrate. Instead of using webhooks and having to host services externally, and keep them up, monitor them, make sure they're always available, just run your code inside the platform that was going to call the webhooks. The amazing people at Shopify are using this technology for their new store system. The sorts of like a chain here writes.

Let's remove the black box system from everything and add scripting safely. We've all used analytics platforms that have their own little log analytics regex based scripting for making reports, why not allow us to make our reports in Rust or JavaScript or Python, something that developers already know without them having to learn this new proprietary scripting language. Why not replace really large config files with code instead?

We could take this approach and do something like that at Fastly. Fastly currently offers a lot of services via the host environment, such as WAFs and image processing. These services could become WebAssembly modules themselves, which could be included automatically in a user service. This would be really valuable because we no longer have to maintain these running services. It would become much harder to have a WAF outage, because the WAF is no longer a running process. It's instead a library being used in customer code, the same with image processing, the same with other things that Fastly wants to add.

Why make this something purely internal? Fastly could, in the future, if we wanted to, make a public marketplace where developers could create their own components that can be dynamically added to running services. If we were to create something like a request to modify a component interface, we could offer components that other people write that we can check, match this component interface as a plug and play style add-ons for Fastly. All enabled plugins will just be included in services at runtime. Some examples of that include something like a redirect plugin, or authentication plugin. This isn't something we are committing today, just something that we could do with this technology.

The Next Generation of Fastly

Fastly really is using WebAssembly wherever possible. We're building the next generation of our products using Compute@Edge on the WebAssembly platform. Such as Fastly Next-Gen WAF, powered by Signal Sciences, and even our core CDN service, by compiling VCL, our current scripting language, into WebAssembly, and running it at Compute@Edge, so we only have one unified platform that we have to maintain. Importantly, we're doing this while being committed to adopting open standards wherever possible. We're not making black box systems and licensing them to people. We're working with open source projects like Wasmtime and WASI, and encouraging others to do the same.

Questions and Answers

Eberhardt: At the moment with Fastly, you support a range of languages. I know you are supporting JavaScript as well. Do you have any feeling around, what's the most popular? Because early stages with WebAssembly, it was a lot of Rust and a lot of C++? What things are people using now?

Overton: There's really two sides to this, because Fastly's overall goal isn't to really sell WebAssembly, it's to sell serverless computing. We've decided the best way of doing that is through WebAssembly. We have customers who want to run code at the edge, and they're not really interested in how it works at all. They're like, "I'd like to run JavaScript, because my whole team knows JavaScript." We support that. The fact that their JavaScript is being compiled to WebAssembly isn't important to them at all.

Then the complete other side of things, we have customers who are only talking to us because we do WebAssembly, and it's really important to them. Maybe they're writing Rust, or they're bringing some other language that they can compile like Go, and they want to run that on our platform, because we can run that really quickly. Because like I talked about on the compiler path, we compile that to native machine code and run it on a physical machine, so it's really fast. Popular languages, there's a lot of JavaScript, because that's the language of the web, and Fastly operates in the web. There's also a lot of Rust because the WebAssembly ecosystem is really strong there.

Eberhardt: You've got two types of customer, you've got the ones who get interested in the tech and the others that just want to run stuff quickly, easily, cheaply on the edge network.

I first heard the term serverless when that pattern emerged from the big cloud vendors. I always thought it was a bit of a misnomer. It was serverless, but really, under the hood, there was quite a lot of infrastructure being spun up. Yes, there was a server underneath. I know you do effectively have a server there but it does feel much more like a better embodiment of the word serverless, the way that you're doing it, that genuinely lightweight approach.

Overton: It's always really interesting because before I ever joined Fastly, I worked at a company where we did a big migration onto AWS Lambda. When you start doing that, you find out the truth that it's actually Docker containers. Then they scale them for you, and they handle that for you. In the current state of where serverless is today, it doesn't really matter what the idea is. I want to deploy my serverless code, ok, where? No, I don't care about where, I just want to deploy it. It's like, pick a region. It's like, ok, I'll pick a region. It's like, what concurrency do you want? It's like, hang on. You get into these points where you end up configuring just as much infrastructure as you do with containers.

Eberhardt: There'll be state bleeding between sessions, because really, we are running servers under the hood, and you're exposed to that.

Overton: Where Fastly just did it completely differently, is, we don't have containers, we don't have virtual machines. Every server that Fastly is using to serve web traffic, has the customer code available to it. When a request comes in, that machine will run it in the same way that those machines will handle our customer CDN config. It's all multitenant at the highest level, so when you deploy a WebAssembly function to Fastly, it's either deployed or not deployed. Those are your two options. There's no deployed with this concurrency. If you're doing one request per second, or 100,000 requests per second, there's actually the same amount of infrastructure managing that service.

Eberhardt: I've got some stuff running on AWS that I really should move on to Fastly just to see what the experience is like.

The first question is regarding user supplied WebAssembly versus webhooks. Can WebAssembly be used to mine Bitcoin or perform nefarious activities?

Overton: It all boils down to the access you give to WebAssembly. You know how we talked about importing host functions in? If I'm operating a payment provider and I want someone to be able to add a function that triggers when someone buys something, does that function need to be having GPU access? Probably not. Does it need to be able to make arbitrary web requests? Probably no. You would import the functions into it that it needs to do. Technically, WebAssembly is great at doing lots of maps, but you also have a lot of ways to limit that. For example, when we run code in Fastly, we don't run customer code with unlimited memory, and unlimited amounts of time. We say, for this request, you can have 100 megabytes of memory, and you can run for 1 second maximum. You can protect yourself by doing that. Just because you're running WebAssembly doesn't mean you have to give someone unlimited power. You can give them a very controlled limited environment.

Eberhardt: If I write a serverless function, deploy it to Fastly using WebAssembly, do I have the opportunity to make network requests within my serverless function?

Overton: In Fastly, you do, but only because we've given you that ability. We took the time to create a function for making web requests and import it into the guest environment. If we didn't do that, you won't be able to do it.

Eberhardt: You'd be quite limited if you couldn't do that.

Overton: With a CDN, it'd be quite limiting, yes, not being able to do web traffic.

Eberhardt: How do we scale up or down individual components in WebAssembly? I think maybe they're asking more about serverless than WebAssembly. The general question is, how does serverless scale?

Overton: I've already talked about a lot, but within Firstly, there is no concurrency or capacity for a service, either all the machines have the service ready, or none of them do, deployed or not deployed. We basically ship the code in a shared storage that all the service can view it, and they have it in memory ready to go. They can just serve the request because one machine will handle requests for every customer. It just depends on how much traffic that machine gets, or how much code it runs. We take the scaling factors away from you. Obviously, Fastly as a CDN, we have to do a lot of scaling work. We operate on the whole of our customer base, so we have quite smooth curves. Where if you're a singular company, say you're a news website, you can have a big spike in traffic, and have to do lots of scaling. Where at the scale that Fastly is at, one of our customers that's a news website, having a big spike in traffic is noticeable. Scaling at our level becomes a lot easier, and so we just have physical machines and data centers ready.

Eberhardt: What's the current state of work on memory management, particularly with regard to cross module sharing? I'm guessing this is a couple of WebAssembly modules sharing linear memory.

Overton: We're obviously really excited about module linking. It'll enable us to do some really cool stuff. A lot of these standards are figured out. A lot of the difficulty at the moment for actually using the technology comes from client tooling. With Rust, a lot of the work is done. If we wanted to do a Rust-Rust module linking demo, we're probably not too far away. We're pretty close to doing that. If you wanted to do a JavaScript-Go module linking demo, that's actually really hard because the client tooling is not there.

Eberhardt: Also, the question was about shared linear memory, which is such a low level concept, most of us users would not be sharing linear memory with the goal of sharing data between a couple of different languages. Generally speaking, that's the job of the people writing either the compilers or writing the higher level APIs, allow us to share data, things like interface types, and so on, that allow us to share data between WebAssembly modules.

Overton: Even when you are working at the low level, the tooling is designed to hide that away from you. If you use things like wit-bindgen to generate bindings in Rust for using WASI, that will generate a bindings file that handles all the memory management stuff. There are very few use cases where a user really wants to be playing in that space. It's definitely an important thing that needs to exist. Me as a developer who's working on my website, or my database or something, I don't actually want to have to think about that.

Eberhardt: From your experience, what's the startup time of more complex functions? I think they're referring to JavaScript functions. As an example, I know, through using AWS, if you create a JavaScript serverless function that has a lot of dependencies, the startup times can be pretty bad. I know on projects I've worked on, we've had to use exactly the same techniques you use on the web. Tree shaking, minification to reduce the amount of JavaScript code that is interpreted, compiled, or whatever by the runtime to reduce cold start times. Do the same rules apply now that you have Wizer? Is that all now part of your precompile or pre-warmup step?

Overton: It does exist but for very different reasons. The complexity of an application doesn't matter at all, but the physical size, the megabytes of the WebAssembly module does matter. Because you're doing basically a memcpy right at the start. When the first thing to do is, I want to run this WebAssembly module, you copy it into memory. Copying 1 megabyte into memory is quicker than copying 50 megabytes into memory. It's still pretty fast, but there's obviously a difference in speed there. If you take your really simple rustup that is compiled to [inaudible 00:45:05], that starts really quick. It's not so much a Rust or JavaScript thing, because you could take a rustup and embed big files into it, and that's a WebAssembly module. If you have a 60 megabyte one, you're still sub-millisecond, but it does take longer. Maybe you're worried about it if you're doing very small, quick transactions. If you're making a website, it's not so much.

Eberhardt: From my perspective, I'm anticipating orders of magnitude difference in terms of performance. Again, when I think about deploying JavaScript code as serverless functions to AWS, you've got a packaged JSON file, it's doing an npm install. It's bringing all this stuff in. Everything sits there as text files. The first thing your runtime has got to do is it's got to parse these text files into an AST. It's got to load them into a runtime, which then JIT compiles them. The amount of stuff it has to do before it actually executes what's probably only about 30 lines of JavaScript is quite ridiculous when you take a step back and think about it. The difference in complexity between executing code within a WebAssembly runtime versus in the more traditional serverless implementations, to me, is orders of magnitude difference.

 

See more presentations with transcripts

 

Recorded at:

Oct 28, 2022

Related Sponsored Content

    Related Sponsor

    The world’s most scalable and reliable MQTT messaging platform for mission-critical IoT scenarios. Get a front-row seat to the future of IoT data infrastructure at EMQ. Start your free trial.

Hello stranger!

You need to Register an InfoQ account or or login to post comments. But there's so much more behind being registered.

Get the most out of the InfoQ experience.

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Community comments

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

Allowed html: a,b,br,blockquote,i,li,pre,u,ul,p

BT