6 ms·
From what I can tell this is largely outdated advice. We've been running multiple 800GB postgres instances in docker for over a year now, with not a single prob
by ricw 10y ago
From what I can tell this is largely outdated advice. We've been running multiple 800GB postgres instances in docker for over a year now, with not a single problem. Not one.
- amq 10y agoWould be an interesting write-up. How do you handle upgrades? What is the reason for Docker in your case? Are you managing the individual containers manually or using some tool?
- user5994461 10y agoIt is very up-to-date advice. Just because you were lucky to not experience massive issues doesn't mean they aren't present.
- ricw 10y agoIn what way is it up-to-date? From what I can tell the majority of horror stories were related to running "outdated" linux kernels, which ubuntu 16.04 fixed for us (we purposefully only started using docker with the beta version of ubuntu 16.04, hence a year). In fact, running the postgres instances in isolation has given us far more confidence than if they were run "natively". backing up docker instances is trivially easy in comparison to running native instances, as you already know what data volumes you need to back up. all our instances use exactly the same backup and restoration script. all our instances get rolled into staging using the same script on a daily basis. no failures so far. zero. would be interested in actual "up-to-date" reasons, other than "docker's engineering department is not dependable", which btw I can emphasise with if you were burned in the past.
- user5994461 10y agoYou're the perfect example of the problem. The typical dev who thinks running on a beta version of Ubuntu is the norm and calls anything else "outdated". Yes, docker may be up to your standards. No, docker is not up the standards of real businesses, who use stable OS and sometimes even paid support for it.