4 ms·
Some advantages: - I can use the same tools to administer both host and guests (systemctl and journalctl). - cgroups and namespaces are managed the same way o
by tadfisher 10y ago
Some advantages:
- I can use the same tools to administer both host and guests (systemctl and journalctl).
- cgroups and namespaces are managed the same way on both host and guests.
- I can integrate containers (via .nspawn and .service units) with my host init/supervision daemon, like any other systemd service, without translating from one configuration format to another.
- Because of the above, resource/quota constraints for a single container or groups of containers can be described via a common configuration.
- sjellis 10y agoYeah, there's an underlying point here that containers are just processes, so there should be little difference between containerized services and services running directly on the host. There's an idea that the desired end-state should be that all services are containerized, which means that either Docker manages services (as in RancherOS), or systemd does.