5 ms·

Interestingly, alpine doesn't use systemd.

by okasaki 11y ago

bespoke_engnr 11y ago
Why is this downvoted? It is interesting (and worth pointing out), since not using systemd is different from every "enterprise" Linux distro out there.
- mrmondo 11y ago
  Sorry that was me, when I read it I thought it was a snarky 'systemd vs bla' comment, upon re-reading I see that you could well be correct so I appologise for that, I will be less hasty next time.
  - bespoke_engnr 11y ago
    Actually, I take it back -- you are probably wiser than me, pre-empting the systemd battles that always ensue :-D.
- jlappi 11y ago
  Alpine really wouldn't fall into the Enterprise category due to it's small size and developer pool. It's a great community project that I wouldn't doubt has some form of corporate support financially.
rakk 11y ago
Personally I don't miss it. IMHO the alpine image is perfect to run single services that don't have too much dependencies. On your host system you can use systemd to spin up these services as docker instances (if you don't need scheduling).
dbalan 11y ago
I'd like to point out that a docker container, usually doesn't run an init system. [I get that OP was talking about standalone alpine]
- forgotpwtomain 11y ago
  I remember reading centos tried to make systemd available in docker containers briefly but went back on it due to bugs (not sure if they were ever resolved). I've seen containers that need init management using supervisord.
- kgilpin 11y ago
  We use phusion baseimage, which does have an init system (runit). We have been happy with that. Our customers are not ready for us to provide our product as 6 distinct linked docker containers. The image we build is more like a VM in that it contains multiple processes (pg, nginx, and some apps/services).
  - timdorr 11y ago
    If you're providing an all-in-one solution like that, it sounds like you would be better served by just providing an OVF image to them. Or better yet, keep 6 distinct containers like you should, and use docker-compose to spin them up together. Makes upgrades easier because you can simply point to a newer version of whatever service containers you're using without having to take out everything. If you're using containers as a VM, you're essentially adding overhead for no good reason.
- mkobit 11y ago
  I am not sure if I saw it HN recently, but there is an article by Phusion [1] talking about the init process and how to handle it with Docker. They have a base image, baseimage-docker [2], that is supposed to solve that problem. [1]: https://blog.phusion.nl/2015/01/20/docker-and-the-pid-1-zombie-reaping-problem/ https://blog.phusion.nl/2015/01/20/docker-and-the-pid-1-zomb... [2]: https://phusion.github.io/baseimage-docker/ https://phusion.github.io/baseimage-docker/
  - meddlepal 11y ago
    I've used this a bunch. Its great. Runit is super simple too.
vezzy-fnord 11y ago
Does upstream systemd build on musl now?

Interestingly, alpine doesn't use systemd.

by okasaki 11y ago

Interestingly, alpine doesn't use systemd.

Why is this downvoted? It is interesting (and worth pointing out), since not using systemd is different from every "enterprise" Linux distro out there.

mrmondo 11y ago
Sorry that was me, when I read it I thought it was a snarky 'systemd vs bla' comment, upon re-reading I see that you could well be correct so I appologise for that, I will be less hasty next time.
- bespoke_engnr 11y ago
  Actually, I take it back -- you are probably wiser than me, pre-empting the systemd battles that always ensue :-D.
jlappi 11y ago
Alpine really wouldn't fall into the Enterprise category due to it's small size and developer pool. It's a great community project that I wouldn't doubt has some form of corporate support financially.

rakk 11y ago

Personally I don't miss it. IMHO the alpine image is perfect to run single services that don't have too much dependencies. On your host system you can use systemd to spin up these services as docker instances (if you don't need scheduling).

dbalan 11y ago

I'd like to point out that a docker container, usually doesn't run an init system. [I get that OP was talking about standalone alpine]

forgotpwtomain 11y ago
I remember reading centos tried to make systemd available in docker containers briefly but went back on it due to bugs (not sure if they were ever resolved). I've seen containers that need init management using supervisord.
kgilpin 11y ago
We use phusion baseimage, which does have an init system (runit). We have been happy with that. Our customers are not ready for us to provide our product as 6 distinct linked docker containers. The image we build is more like a VM in that it contains multiple processes (pg, nginx, and some apps/services).
- timdorr 11y ago
  If you're providing an all-in-one solution like that, it sounds like you would be better served by just providing an OVF image to them. Or better yet, keep 6 distinct containers like you should, and use docker-compose to spin them up together. Makes upgrades easier because you can simply point to a newer version of whatever service containers you're using without having to take out everything. If you're using containers as a VM, you're essentially adding overhead for no good reason.
mkobit 11y ago
I am not sure if I saw it HN recently, but there is an article by Phusion [1] talking about the init process and how to handle it with Docker. They have a base image, baseimage-docker [2], that is supposed to solve that problem. [1]: https://blog.phusion.nl/2015/01/20/docker-and-the-pid-1-zombie-reaping-problem/ https://blog.phusion.nl/2015/01/20/docker-and-the-pid-1-zomb... [2]: https://phusion.github.io/baseimage-docker/ https://phusion.github.io/baseimage-docker/
- meddlepal 11y ago
  I've used this a bunch. Its great. Runit is super simple too.

vezzy-fnord 11y ago

Does upstream systemd build on musl now?