I think increasingly we'll see Firecracker used with EC2-like setups of "create a disk image with everything preinstalled and then boot it" rather than using snapshots of running (suspended) VMs.
A very specific use case, I know, but if I could have the CI runners run as needed, we could get instances that are way bigger so our builds run faster, and pay around the same amount since they don't have to sit around when they aren't being used.
Pulling the image and building the container is actually just a matter of a few seconds.
I have no data about it though.
On the other hand, ECS still seems slow compared to k8s where things are nearly instance unless you're measuring so ECS control plane speed might be part of the issue, too
If you need super fast boot times firecracker is definitely worth looking at but should be taken with caveats of what precisely you are going to run there.
The main reason why snapshotting became interesting for us, is because we're running development servers defined by our users. A development server could take a long time to start, sometimes minutes.
So even if we can start the VM fast, the most important speedup for us is on the user code that we cannot control.
The opposite case - say the user code binds to an IP:port to run a service. Will the clone try to step over the parent, binding to a port that is already taken?
For IP uniqueness, we give every VM the same IP, but we put every VM in its own network namespace. Then we have iptable rules to rewrite the src/dest IP on every packet that enters the network namespace.
I did some extensive IPv4 and IPv6 ECMP anycast testing a couple years ago where we'd randomly bring up and kill hosts and containers.
The network layer provided the fault tolerance and could be tweaked to react very quickly to missing hosts.
I revisited my proof-of-concept test scripts when I wrote the previous comment. I'll try in the next week to add some additional tests in there to determine stream reliability and packet delay/loss.
UDP of course doesn't have the same benefits.
I'm using ECMP + Anycast in a project I've been developing for the last couple of years (K18S or Keep It Simples Stupids) to effectively replace Kubernetes functionality with standard protocols and tooling that is in almost all distros.
We started out with the challenge of replacing the major parts of CNIs and that is where the ECMP + Anycast work arose from.
Native IPv6 with only VLANs and direct routing (no messing about with IPv4, NAT or overlay networks), ECMP + Anycast gives load-balanced routing to pods with automatic detection of lost hosts. Pods exposed to public get public IPv6 address in addition to a ULA (Unique Local Address, formerly called site-local). ULAs used for private routing.
Systemd-networkd is configured automatically by systemd-nspawn so there doesn't need to be a massive, foreign, orchestration control system.
Systemd-nspawn/systemd-machined to manage container lifecycles with OCI compliant images, or leverage nspawn's support for overlayfs to build machine images from several different file-system images. (rather like Docker's layers but always separate, not combined) but can be used in a pick-and-mix fashion to assemble a container that has several related but separately packaged components.
Configs for /etc/ of each container mapped in from external storage using the same overlayfs method. In most cases everything is read-only but some hosts/pods can be allowed to write into the /etc/ overlay and those changes can be optionally committed to the external storage.
Adopting IPV6 and dropping IPv4 was the best thing we ever did in terms of keeping things simple and straightforward and relying on the existing network protocols and layers, instead of re-inventing it all (badly).
At the time we started Kubernetes didn't even have IPv6 support and even once it did many CNIs couldn't handle it properly.