can migrate approximately up to $19\mathsf{x}$ the number of containers compared to VMs within the same amount of time. That said, the relative advantage of LXC over KVM is reduced as the RAM utilization increases. At $400$ MB of RAM usage, LXC is $5\mathsf{x}$ faster to migrate than KVM; whereas at $600$ MB of RAM usage, LXC is only $4\mathsf{x}$ faster to migrate than KVM.

Figure \[fig:ramUsage\] (bottom) shows that the relative advantage of LXC over KVM increases as bandwidth increases. At $1$ Mbps, LXC is $2\mathsf{x}$ faster to migrate than KVM, whereas at $10$ Mbps LXC is $4\mathsf{x}$ faster. We found in our experiments that the data transmission rate is capped by how fast *rsync* is able to compare files and compress data. When the bandwidth is over $50$ Mbps, the migration time remains about the same, where LXC is $8\mathsf{x}$ faster to migrate than KVM.

Containers also have their shortcomings though. By relying on the host system for both the hardware and kernel, they are less adaptable than VMs. They can be nested within VMs to regain their adaptability, but this is likely to degrade performance. Instead, it is advisable that MEC infrastructure is chosen to ensure container 