pub fn compare_vms(a: Vm, b: Vm) -> VmComparisonExpand description
Compare system a against baseline b across all five axes.
Examples found in repository?
examples/vm_benchmark.rs (line 36)
12fn main() {
13 println!("agentic-eval — VM/sandbox systems for agentic AI use");
14 println!("axes: start-latency, density, isolation, snapshotting, agent-control\n");
15
16 // ── Ranked benchmark (best-first by composite agentic fitness) ───────────
17 println!(
18 "{:<17} {:>7} {:>5} {:>7} {:>9} {:>8} {:>13}",
19 "system", "fitness", "start", "density", "isolation", "snapshot", "agent-control"
20 );
21 for p in rank_vms() {
22 println!(
23 "{:<17} {:>7.2} {:>5.2} {:>7.2} {:>9.2} {:>8.2} {:>13.2}",
24 p.vm.name(),
25 p.fitness(),
26 p.start_latency,
27 p.density,
28 p.isolation,
29 p.snapshotting,
30 p.agent_control,
31 );
32 }
33
34 // ── Head-to-head: AetherVM vs the microVM reference (Firecracker) ────────
35 println!("\nhead-to-head (positive = AetherVM fits agentic use better):");
36 print!("{}", compare_vms(Vm::AetherVm, Vm::Firecracker));
37
38 // ── Evidence behind the subject's profile ────────────────────────────────
39 println!("\nwhy AetherVM scores where it does:");
40 for e in &profile(Vm::AetherVm).evidence {
41 println!(" - {e}");
42 }
43
44 println!(
45 "\nReading: AetherVM leads on the agent-native axes it was designed for\n\
46 (instant CoW branching + an MCP-native control plane), while microVMs\n\
47 (Firecracker/Cloud Hypervisor) lead on raw cold-start and battle-tested\n\
48 isolation. Shared-kernel containers (Docker) win speed/density but rank\n\
49 low on isolation for untrusted, agent-generated code."
50 );
51}