4 ms·

Would rkt be a worth to try alternative?

andrewguenther 10y ago
I really haven't looked at rkt as much as I should, but we're more likely to invest in looking at lower level tools like runC moving forward.
- StreamBright 10y ago
  Amazing thank you! I need to chose a containerization tech in the next month and I am pretty worried to go with Docker because I hear many stories about how it is not really production ready. Thanks for mentioning runC I will check it out.
  - colemickens 10y ago
    runC isn't an orchestration solution. It's a low-level component that can be (or is already) used by higher-level orchestration technologies.
    - StreamBright 10y ago
      Great, I do not need any orchestration solution at all. I need a container running thing that can encapsulate any software that we are developing (Java, C#, Node.JS, etc.). And now we are approaching the question what is my problem with Docker. I believe it is a misconception to compete with already existing tools like systemd. I especially do not want any mediocre orchestration solutions in my infrastructure that introduce big overhead and complexity that I do not need at all. One thing I learned along the way of managing large clusters (5K+ nodes) that Swarm like frameworks are extremely error prone. If you flip the problem and build a startup script the pulls down the container configuration from S3 for example and the container itself has code that attaches the instance to the right service (EKB, Haproxy, etc.) you can achieve the same without introducing services that sole purpose is to maintain a state that you do not need.
      - sjellis 10y ago
        I really do wonder what it would take to get the ecosystem to get behind rkt or something else. The present situation feels to me like it's held together by a shared desire to keep the Docker brand going, and that conflicts between Docker Inc. and basically everybody else just won't stop, because there is a lot of money involved for all sides.
        StreamBright 10y ago
        For me the question is more like: why should we bundle together containerization with anything else? Why couldn't we follow the unix philosophy and have the containers work together with the orchestration softwares and not tied together. CoreOS seems to have it kind of independent. Our biggest blocker is the lack of RPMs for CentOS/RedHat for rkt.
      - galdosdi 10y ago
        If you want a container-like technology that already has the large cluster management, scaling built in and is ideal for software whose source code you control think about trying kubernetes (and/or any similar competitors).
      - jacques_chester 10y ago
        Sounds like you want a PaaS. Cloud Foundry is currently running real applications with 10k+ containers per installation. We are on track to test it with 250k app instances. Plus it's been around for, in internet terms, eternity. Garden predates Docker, Diego predates Kubernetes, BOSH predates Terraform or CloudFormation and so on. Used by boring F1000 companies, which is why it's not talked about much on HN. Disclosure: I work for Pivotal, we are the majority donors of engineering to Cloud Foundry.
    - cyphar 10y ago
      We're actually working on getting OCI support into Kubernetes. It's a long way away, but we're very determined to get large orchestration engines to provide support for OCI runtimes (runC being the canonical example of such a runtime).
  - andrewguenther 10y ago
    All depends on your use case. RunC could be way too low level for what you need and Docker may be production ready for your specific use case.
    - StreamBright 10y ago
      No, it is perfectly covering my use case. I need a _reliable_ containerization app that does not run any additional service on my boxes. I am working on an extremely low overhead orchestration for our cluster so we can avoid Swarm entirely.
  - dominotw 10y ago
    > I need to chose a containerization tech You are more likely to run into issues with containerization itself ( cgroup, namespaces ect) than abstractions on top of it. Unless you are doing some sort of orchestration on top of containers, you can't go wrong with any of the container abstractions.
  - hartem_ 10y ago
    Disclaimer: I work at Mesosphere. There are alternative runtime implementations (such as Mesos/Mesosphere DC/OS) that let you have best of both worlds: developers can still use Docker and produce Docker images but you use production-grade container orchestration (and that same Docker images) without using Docker daemon for your actual service deployment.
fuzzy2 10y ago
Hm, I don’t think so. It just doesn’t have enough momentum and as such there aren’t many containers available. Of course, if you want to roll your own, that may not be relevant. I tried it with the nginx and php-fpm Docker containers, but it wouldn’t work – because those containers assume specific process hierarchies (to log to the console where you issued `docker run`) that just aren’t present when using rkt. The advertised Docker compatibility only goes so far. I still think rkt is a great idea, but I’m too lazy to develop my own containers. The documentation isn’t that good either.
- sjellis 10y ago
  To be fair, you really have to roll your own containers for applications, and it's not hard at all, if you already know how the applications are hosted are on a Linux server. I've found the single-service Docker containers from the Hub are useful for development (MySQL, Redis, etc.), but the "official" language run-time Docker containers that I've looked at are basically demoware. They are built to give you something that runs with the minimum of effort, rather than being efficient or anything else.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  They need to implement support for the Dockerfile format if they want to win. People value inertia. The switching costs have to be low if you expect anyone to switch; this only become non-true when the incumbent becomes intolerably useless to the general userbase.
  - philips 10y ago
    rkt can run any docker image built by a Dockerfile: https://coreos.com/rkt/docs/latest/running-docker-images.html https://coreos.com/rkt/docs/latest/running-docker-images.htm... I agree that we need a better ecosystem of build tools and that is something we are looking to help build out. But, with rkt what we are trying to do is build an excellent runtime; and think the build side is an important and orthogonal problem.
nullcipher 10y ago
There is no proper ecosystem for rkt. All I have seen is marketing hype and I don't know anyone who uses it. Just go to any meetup.

I really haven't looked at rkt as much as I should, but we're more likely to invest in looking at lower level tools like runC moving forward.

StreamBright 10y ago
Amazing thank you! I need to chose a containerization tech in the next month and I am pretty worried to go with Docker because I hear many stories about how it is not really production ready. Thanks for mentioning runC I will check it out.
- colemickens 10y ago
  runC isn't an orchestration solution. It's a low-level component that can be (or is already) used by higher-level orchestration technologies.
  - StreamBright 10y ago
    Great, I do not need any orchestration solution at all. I need a container running thing that can encapsulate any software that we are developing (Java, C#, Node.JS, etc.). And now we are approaching the question what is my problem with Docker. I believe it is a misconception to compete with already existing tools like systemd. I especially do not want any mediocre orchestration solutions in my infrastructure that introduce big overhead and complexity that I do not need at all. One thing I learned along the way of managing large clusters (5K+ nodes) that Swarm like frameworks are extremely error prone. If you flip the problem and build a startup script the pulls down the container configuration from S3 for example and the container itself has code that attaches the instance to the right service (EKB, Haproxy, etc.) you can achieve the same without introducing services that sole purpose is to maintain a state that you do not need.
    - sjellis 10y ago
      I really do wonder what it would take to get the ecosystem to get behind rkt or something else. The present situation feels to me like it's held together by a shared desire to keep the Docker brand going, and that conflicts between Docker Inc. and basically everybody else just won't stop, because there is a lot of money involved for all sides.
      - StreamBright 10y ago
        For me the question is more like: why should we bundle together containerization with anything else? Why couldn't we follow the unix philosophy and have the containers work together with the orchestration softwares and not tied together. CoreOS seems to have it kind of independent. Our biggest blocker is the lack of RPMs for CentOS/RedHat for rkt.
    - galdosdi 10y ago
      If you want a container-like technology that already has the large cluster management, scaling built in and is ideal for software whose source code you control think about trying kubernetes (and/or any similar competitors).
    - jacques_chester 10y ago
      Sounds like you want a PaaS. Cloud Foundry is currently running real applications with 10k+ containers per installation. We are on track to test it with 250k app instances. Plus it's been around for, in internet terms, eternity. Garden predates Docker, Diego predates Kubernetes, BOSH predates Terraform or CloudFormation and so on. Used by boring F1000 companies, which is why it's not talked about much on HN. Disclosure: I work for Pivotal, we are the majority donors of engineering to Cloud Foundry.
  - cyphar 10y ago
    We're actually working on getting OCI support into Kubernetes. It's a long way away, but we're very determined to get large orchestration engines to provide support for OCI runtimes (runC being the canonical example of such a runtime).
- andrewguenther 10y ago
  All depends on your use case. RunC could be way too low level for what you need and Docker may be production ready for your specific use case.
  - StreamBright 10y ago
    No, it is perfectly covering my use case. I need a _reliable_ containerization app that does not run any additional service on my boxes. I am working on an extremely low overhead orchestration for our cluster so we can avoid Swarm entirely.
- dominotw 10y ago
  > I need to chose a containerization tech You are more likely to run into issues with containerization itself ( cgroup, namespaces ect) than abstractions on top of it. Unless you are doing some sort of orchestration on top of containers, you can't go wrong with any of the container abstractions.
- hartem_ 10y ago
  Disclaimer: I work at Mesosphere. There are alternative runtime implementations (such as Mesos/Mesosphere DC/OS) that let you have best of both worlds: developers can still use Docker and produce Docker images but you use production-grade container orchestration (and that same Docker images) without using Docker daemon for your actual service deployment.

fuzzy2 10y ago

Hm, I don’t think so. It just doesn’t have enough momentum and as such there aren’t many containers available. Of course, if you want to roll your own, that may not be relevant. I tried it with the nginx and php-fpm Docker containers, but it wouldn’t work – because those containers assume specific process hierarchies (to log to the console where you issued `docker run`) that just aren’t present when using rkt. The advertised Docker compatibility only goes so far. I still think rkt is a great idea, but I’m too lazy to develop my own containers. The documentation isn’t that good either.

sjellis 10y ago
To be fair, you really have to roll your own containers for applications, and it's not hard at all, if you already know how the applications are hosted are on a Linux server. I've found the single-service Docker containers from the Hub are useful for development (MySQL, Redis, etc.), but the "official" language run-time Docker containers that I've looked at are basically demoware. They are built to give you something that runs with the minimum of effort, rather than being efficient or anything else.
cookiecaper 10y ago
They need to implement support for the Dockerfile format if they want to win. People value inertia. The switching costs have to be low if you expect anyone to switch; this only become non-true when the incumbent becomes intolerably useless to the general userbase.
- philips 10y ago
  rkt can run any docker image built by a Dockerfile: https://coreos.com/rkt/docs/latest/running-docker-images.html https://coreos.com/rkt/docs/latest/running-docker-images.htm... I agree that we need a better ecosystem of build tools and that is something we are looking to help build out. But, with rkt what we are trying to do is build an excellent runtime; and think the build side is an important and orthogonal problem.

nullcipher 10y ago

There is no proper ecosystem for rkt. All I have seen is marketing hype and I don't know anyone who uses it. Just go to any meetup.