3 ms·
Containers add their own considerable complexity to the stack. If the dependencies are complicated enough, or you need fast scaling/reconfiguration on the fly,
by wrs 11y ago
Containers add their own considerable complexity to the stack. If the dependencies are complicated enough, or you need fast scaling/reconfiguration on the fly, then containers can certainly be a net positive. But if you're adding Docker, Compose, DCHQ, and whatever else to your stack just so you can put Nginx and some Ruby code in a container, I'm questioning whether that ends up being a net benefit over Puppet/Chef + rsync.
- tra3 11y agoI hear you. I like the idea of "deploying" a pre-built image. Capistrano "just-in-time" deployments (particularly deployment time "bundle") seem a little non-deterministic. Docker is certainly non-trivial though, but I think (I hope), it's a net win. Time will show. In my mind, it certainly parallels the binary package (debian) vs build-on-demand package (arch? OS X brew) approach. Both seem to work, but I certainly prefer the debs.
- brady8 11y agoThat's where Ansible + Capistrano can work together nicely. No need to change your application or deviate significantly from a "vanilla" Ubuntu install - just add your nginx, Passenger configs to Ansible, build the server, and then deploy with Capistrano.