3 ms·

what gives you more than docker-compose itself? with docker-compose and docker swarm I can easily add services there, configure the application environment and

what gives you more than docker-compose itself? with docker-compose and docker swarm I can easily add services there, configure the application environment and scale it. seems interesting but please enumerate things I can do that are not delivered by docker compose and docker swarm.

_lmars 10y ago
A main advantage of Flynn over using docker-compose is that Flynn is more aware of how to run applications out-of-the-box, rather than just running containers which the user has to fully configure. For example, Flynn comes with PostgreSQL, MariaDB and MongoDB appliances which are deployed in a highly available, fault tolerant configuration with sane defaults: https://flynn.io/docs/databases https://flynn.io/docs/databases. Through the use of buildpacks, it is also straight forward to deploy applications written in many popular languages and frameworks without being intimately acquainted with how to containerise those types of applications (e.g deploying a Ruby on Rails app on JRuby: https://flynn.io/docs/languages/ruby https://flynn.io/docs/languages/ruby). You also get things like full cluster backups (including all your data), simple git / docker / tarball based deployments, log aggregation, release rollbacks, domain / path based routing, service discovery, and many more!
EngineerBetter 10y ago
Both this and other PaaSes remove a lot of the plumbing. Also, the target audience is different. PaaSes offer self-servixe for end users: for instance starting a new database on demand through the user interface. You can achieve much of this with Docker Compose, but your users can't. The Docker-PaaS movement reminds me of content-management systems in the early 2000s. Everyone (myself included) thought it'd be great to spend loads of engineering effort reinventing the wheel, instead of delivering business value.

_lmars 10y ago

A main advantage of Flynn over using docker-compose is that Flynn is more aware of how to run applications out-of-the-box, rather than just running containers which the user has to fully configure. For example, Flynn comes with PostgreSQL, MariaDB and MongoDB appliances which are deployed in a highly available, fault tolerant configuration with sane defaults: https://flynn.io/docs/databases https://flynn.io/docs/databases. Through the use of buildpacks, it is also straight forward to deploy applications written in many popular languages and frameworks without being intimately acquainted with how to containerise those types of applications (e.g deploying a Ruby on Rails app on JRuby: https://flynn.io/docs/languages/ruby https://flynn.io/docs/languages/ruby). You also get things like full cluster backups (including all your data), simple git / docker / tarball based deployments, log aggregation, release rollbacks, domain / path based routing, service discovery, and many more!

EngineerBetter 10y ago

Both this and other PaaSes remove a lot of the plumbing. Also, the target audience is different. PaaSes offer self-servixe for end users: for instance starting a new database on demand through the user interface. You can achieve much of this with Docker Compose, but your users can't. The Docker-PaaS movement reminds me of content-management systems in the early 2000s. Everyone (myself included) thought it'd be great to spend loads of engineering effort reinventing the wheel, instead of delivering business value.