3 ms·

This really does not appeal to me at all. The major point of docker containers is not the image format, it's that the kernel can allocate resources more intelli

This really does not appeal to me at all. The major point of docker containers is not the image format, it's that the kernel can allocate resources more intelligently. VM images work just fine for "shippable images." What I'd rather see is an allocation layer for physical resources that just cordons off the whole machine (physical or virtual) by tenant as soon as previous tenant resources have been fully consumed, then reclaims hosts after usage subsides. So as a provider I still only have one cluster to manage, but as a consumer I still don't worry about another layer of abstraction slowing things down or pre-allocating resources.

scprodigy 10y ago
So we end up with: HW -> EC2 scheduler -> VM -> You -> Container scheduler -> Container -> App There should not be two schedulers if container is secure for multi-tenancy.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
chatmasta 10y ago
I'm interested in the economics of (docker) containers vs. virtual machines. Containers can run within a VM, but a VM can only run within a hypervisor. Currently, if you want to resell computing resources, you need to rent or buy a dedicated server, and run a hypervisor on it. Containers enable a new class of reselling computing resources. Because you can run a container within a VM, you can resell computing capacity on a VM. I think we are going to see another abstraction on top of "the cloud," due to this additional layer of reselling (new russian doll on the inside, new doll on the outside). The physical abstraction is: Datacenter > Floor Space > Server Rack > Server The virtual abstraction is: Server > VM > Container > Kubernetes|MESOS|... Virtual is a 1:1 inverse of physical. Next step is datacenter interconnections (i.e. multihost kubernetes or whatever flavor of the month IaaS software people use).
- derefr 10y ago
  People have been reselling containers without needing an intermediary VM abstraction forever; look at any cheap VPS host offering OpenVZ-based "virtual machines"—which are actually [resource-quota'ed] containers.
  - chatmasta 10y ago
    It's not a question of need; it's a question of ease of opportunity. It's now easier to virtualize via container, and there are more opportunities, since it's easier to get a VM than a dedicated server with hypervisor access.

scprodigy 10y ago

So we end up with: HW -> EC2 scheduler -> VM -> You -> Container scheduler -> Container -> App There should not be two schedulers if container is secure for multi-tenancy.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

chatmasta 10y ago

I'm interested in the economics of (docker) containers vs. virtual machines. Containers can run within a VM, but a VM can only run within a hypervisor. Currently, if you want to resell computing resources, you need to rent or buy a dedicated server, and run a hypervisor on it. Containers enable a new class of reselling computing resources. Because you can run a container within a VM, you can resell computing capacity on a VM. I think we are going to see another abstraction on top of "the cloud," due to this additional layer of reselling (new russian doll on the inside, new doll on the outside). The physical abstraction is: Datacenter > Floor Space > Server Rack > Server The virtual abstraction is: Server > VM > Container > Kubernetes|MESOS|... Virtual is a 1:1 inverse of physical. Next step is datacenter interconnections (i.e. multihost kubernetes or whatever flavor of the month IaaS software people use).

derefr 10y ago
People have been reselling containers without needing an intermediary VM abstraction forever; look at any cheap VPS host offering OpenVZ-based "virtual machines"—which are actually [resource-quota'ed] containers.
- chatmasta 10y ago
  It's not a question of need; it's a question of ease of opportunity. It's now easier to virtualize via container, and there are more opportunities, since it's easier to get a VM than a dedicated server with hypervisor access.