3 ms·
Something troubles me about this article. I hope I'm misunderstanding it. It's stems from the following quotes; knowing this information, why do AeroFS still t
by anoother 11y ago
Something troubles me about this article. I hope I'm misunderstanding it.
It's stems from the following quotes; knowing this information, why do AeroFS still think Docker is a good fit for their use-case?
> However, after our move to Docker, we noticed a sharp increase of the appliance's memory footprint.
> ...
> We identified several major factors behind these symptoms:
> 1. an increase in the number of running JVMs, as each tomcat servlet was placed into a separate container
> 2. reduced opportunity for the many JVMs to share read-only memory: the JVM itself, all the shared libraries it depends on, and of course the many JARs used by multiple services
> 3. memory isolation could in some cases confuse some sizing heuristics, which lead to larger caches being allocated by some services
- ambrice 11y agoPresumably Docker offers some benefit. It's weird that you and several others have jumped to the conclusion that it's obvious they should get rid of Docker. I would say: knowing this information, why do you still think java is a good fit for their use-case?
- anoother 11y agoBecause: a) Their service was already written in it b) Their service was already performing adequately before they brought docker into play But those aren't answers to your question. Java may have been a terrible fit for them, but their decision to move away from it was not motivated by that -- it was motivated by their already-written, already-performing Java code no longer performing as well, because of Docker. The only question is, does Docker bring them enough benefits to justify reimplementing large amounts code, in a new and unfamiliar language? Maybe it does, but somehow I doubt it.