14 ms·
The more I use Docker the more I realize that GCE is going to smoke AWS and Azure in the future with regards to deploying a containerized infrastructure. This
by tbrock 10y ago
The more I use Docker the more I realize that GCE is going to smoke AWS and Azure in the future with regards to deploying a containerized infrastructure.
This is mostly because turn-key kubernetes on GCE is light years ahead of what ECS provides. It almost makes amazon's offering seem like a joke.
This might level the playing field a bit by having Docker itself provide the infrastructure management software instead of it being tied to a particular service.
- AlexCoventry 10y agoA better comparison is probably Amazon's Elastic Beanstalk / Docker integration. http://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticbeanstalk/latest/dg/create_deploy_docker.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/elasticbeanstalk/latest/dg/create...
- tbrock 10y agoNo, elastic beanstalk is terrible.
- MBCook 10y agoWorks great for us so far. Care to elaborate?
- yoanisgil 10y agoI've been using Elastic Beanstalk for some time now and while I find it quite useful for people who just want to get Docker to production without investing to much time into Orchestration, it looks to me like there is a bit of price to pay for that 'simplicity': - Elastic Beanstalk does not provide a native Docker experience. You're forced to use AWS own way of defining services and dependencies (Dockerrurn.aws.json, which comes in two versions). This means you cannot longer use docker-compose, and not all of the options from `docker run` are available (logging driver, privileged containers, though I think the ability to run privileged containers was recently added). - From my personal experience deployment times can be unacceptable long ranging from 5 - 20 mins. They get longer as you add more instances to the environment or if the instances are not powerful enough. I think Elastic Beanstalk makes a good choice for starters or for not so mission-critical applications. As a result of the points explained above I'm now looking into more Docker-centric solutions such Rancher/Kubernete or Docker's UCP.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- sheeshkebab 10y agosecond on beanstalk/docker - beanstalk does simplify quite a bit about running a fleet of docker images (and non-docker stuff too), uses standard aws tools (cf, elb, rds, ecs, vpc), has zero downtime deployment built in, automated server upgrades, app monitoring, environment cloning etc... one nick against beanstalk is that it could be faster doing all those things, but it's tolerable considering alternatives.
- vonkow 10y agoTerraform + any old CI + Elastic Beanstalk works wonderfully for deploying docker apps on AWS.
- blaines 10y agoWhat does beanstalk do exactly? I stopped using it once I needed multi-container deployments but I know that's supported now.
- moosingin3space 10y agoThe most annoying thing about ECS is how it looks like docker-compose (v1) but is just different enough to be incompatible. At my last job, we were evaluating containerization, and we nearly gave up after seeing how awful ECS was to make work.
- thesandlord 10y agoGCE = Google Compute Engine GKE = Google Container Engine The K is for Kubernetes :)
- jdoliner 10y agoPretty sure the parent actually meant GCE in every spot it said GCE.
- thinkersilver 10y agoECS wasn't too bad. The approach they took made sense when it first came out but Amazon haven't evolved the idea since then. Personally I think that GCE's edge won't come from their container support since AWS and Azure both support k8s but will come from their value-add analytics and data services like BigQuery, Dataflow and so on. If Azure and AWS can't compete on that front then GCE will start to cannabilise the customers who are only still using the respective cloud providers only for infrastructure. GCE still has a long way to go before it becomes a serious contender.
- NegatioN 10y agoWhat do you mean it has a long way to go? What exactly is missing in GCE compared to AWS? You just stated something you would be an edge in the future, but no cons it seemed like. Interested to know because we're considering cloud providers.
- vgt 10y agoQuizlet detailed their impressions of EC2 and GCE, and ultimately went with Google: https://quizlet.com/blog/whats-the-best-cloud-probably-gcp https://quizlet.com/blog/whats-the-best-cloud-probably-gcp
- NegatioN 10y agoThank you, that looks like an interesting writeup! Isn't there usually some sort of "disclosure: I work for Google"? Your post-history seems very one-sided. :)
- skrowl 10y agoThis is a rather naive view. AWS and Azure provide A LOT more than just VMs/containers (EC2) as a service. Just having Docker won't give you the same that you can get from AWS RDS, S3, Glacier, Redshift, Route 53, etc.
- jsolson 10y agoSure, but you can get similar things from Google Cloud SQL, Google Cloud Storage, Google Cloud Storage (Nearline), BigQuery, and Google Cloud DNS.
- WayneBro 10y agoSo then the question for me is do I want to deal with Google or Amazon? I pick Amazon every time because I'd never want to depend on Google, who hates customer service and sucks at it.
- outside1234 10y agoAnd you forgot sales, which they suck at even worse, and is critical to success in the cloud (to sell to Enterprises).
- ysh7 10y agoNot sure how Spotify ended up using GCE instead of any other providers. The downtime story was hilarious.
- zwischenzug 10y agoThey don't understand enterprise challenges. They think they do, but are wrong because they think everything's a software problem.
- blaines 10y agoI can't get GPU instances on GCE and high CPU instances max out at 32 vCPU which is a blocker for me. After further review, they don't seem to have a product similar to SNS, looks like I might be able to do most of the same things with Pub/Sub though.
- moosingin3space 10y agoFirebase Cloud Messaging (FCM) seems like an alternative to SNS, although it isn't part of GCE.
- _asummers 10y agoAs you said, SNS is mostly covered with PubSub but SQS and any sort of RDS for something other than MySQL are absent (notably Postgres). I like GCE a lot and we use it at $work but there's no excuse at this point to not have feature parity.
- gtaylor 10y agoPubSub should handle all of your SQS needs and then some. It's a weird combo of SNS and SQS. Has topics, too.
- KB1JWQ 10y agoVery interesting that GCE wasn't mentioned on the slide of supported infrastructures at the DockerCon keynote today.
- shykes 10y agoIt wasn't mentioned because we only launched Docker for AWS and Docker for Azure. We only had the bandwidth to ship 2 versions at the level of quality we wanted, so we picked the most frequently requested providers. I think GCE is a great candidate for the next batch of releases. It all depends on demand. Would you use it?
- ejholmes 10y agoHaving been running a large scale production system on ECS for well over a year now, I'd like to say that ECS is hardly a bad choice; it's incredibly stable, integrates with proven AWS technologies (CloudFormation, ELB, etc) and it just works without having to manage clustering. All it needs is a layer of usability on top, which you can get from things like Empire and Convox. While native Docker clustering is cool in theory, I think the vast amount of complexity around networking makes it unsuitable for production deployments at this time. If stability is more important than bells and whistles, ECS is great choice. Docker's production story, outside of simply running containers, has a lot to be desired.
- AlexCoventry 10y agoCan you point to some of the instabilities?
- ejholmes 10y agoI'm assuming you're referring to instabilities in Docker networking. I can't point to anything specific, but that's because we've seen it as an unnecessary layer of complexity, that's trying to solve a problem that most companies don't/won't have. DNS + a load balancer is proven and stable. We have 65,536 available ports on linux, and doing port mapping to prevent conflicts across containers is trivial (Empire handles this for us). Client side service discovery is usually unnecessary for most Docker use cases (stateless services), where a load balancer is a better fit (why push load balancing to clients? Would you expect your browser to have to load balance when visiting google.com?). I'm sure there are cases where networking overlays are a good fit, I just haven't found one yet.
- shykes 10y agoYou don't have to use overlay. Docker networking is pluggable and any networking configuration supported by Linux can easily ne expised to Docker via network plugins. The most common configurations (bridge, nat, host networking, no networking, overlay) are built-in.
- 10y ago