HomeBlogPricingCareersDocsGitHubSlack community
Field notes/Community builds/AI Sandbox Networking Compared: Tensorlake vs E2B vs Daytona vs Fly.io

AI Sandbox Networking Compared: Tensorlake vs E2B vs Daytona vs Fly.io

How four sandbox platforms route ingress traffic, and why L4 against L7 is a choice each hop makes rather than the whole path.

SBX-01C4SBX-01E3SBX-0202SBX-0221SBX-0240SBX-025FSBX-027ESBX-029DSBX-02BCSBX-02DBSBX-02FASBX-0319SBX-0338SBX-0357SBX-0376[ RUNTIME: ACTIVE ] P50 2.45S · P99 4.12S · 5M/PROJECT

Divy reads the ingress documentation of four platforms and concludes that the interesting question is not which layer each one picked but how much of the reasoning each one publishes. E2B and Daytona both run host-based L7 routing and differ mainly in how they resolve where a sandbox currently lives. Fly Sprites get no sandbox-specific path at all: anycast, WireGuard and a gossip catalog that already carried every other workload on the platform. He is precise about the scope of our own numbers, keeping the throughput won by dropping a redundant L7 hop separate from the roughly 20 percent that kernel TLS and splice added on top, and noting that a single-connection loopback transfer says nothing about a short handshake-bound tool call. The note we appreciated most is that our forwarder refuses to start when the kernel cannot attach the TLS module, instead of quietly falling back.

We didn’t write this one — it’s Divy Yadav’s piece, published on Towards AI. The note above is ours; the full article is theirs.

Read the full piece on Towards AI
DY
WRITTEN BYDivy YadavCommunity · Towards AI
Read next —FROM THE LOG
◆ THE SANDBOX DIGEST

Subscribe for release notes, benchmarks, deep dives.

One dispatch per month from the Tensorlake team — no spam.