container-supported migration framework presented above allows us to provide such a quantitative view and draw further insights.

We can see from the experimentation results that for all the example applications shown, LXC has a clear advantage over KVM in terms of total migration time, service downtime, and amount of transferred data. This is mainly because containers are more compact and the filesystem and in-memory contents of a container is mostly relevant to the application; whereas the filesystem and in-memory contents of a VM can be related to many other background processes irrelevant to the considered application, and *rsync* (or any other incremental file synchronization mechanism) needs to remotely compare a larger amount of data and may not be able to filter out everything that does not belong to the application.

From Figure \[fig:ramUsage\] (top), we see that for the RAM Simulation application, the migration times of both LXC and KVM are approximately linear in RAM utilization. This linear relationship is because the amount of in-memory state data that needs to be transferred is proportional to the RAM usage. The lower bound on RAM usage represents the overhead required to migrate LXC or KVM. Depending on the application’s RAM utilization, we 