3 ms·
> In some cases, we’re currently packing 100-200 containers per instance. I have a very basic "Docker 101" question here.. Can someone explain how you might ge
by abalone 10y ago
> In some cases, we’re currently packing 100-200 containers per instance.
I have a very basic "Docker 101" question here.. Can someone explain how you might get to >100 containers on a given instance? That seems to imply that there are multiple containers of the same microservice running on one machine. Why would you pack duplicate containers like that instead of using one larger container?
- eastbayjake 10y ago> Why would you pack duplicate containers like that instead of using one larger container? Microservices that are scaling horizontally to handle concurrent requests, etc. Depending on how seriously your architects take the "micro" in microservice, you may easily get to 100+ unique microservices/processes each running in their own Docker container.
- abalone 10y agoThat's not what's going on here (100-200 unique microservices). Aside from the fact that that's insane, they specifically state they want to "pack" multiple containers of the same service on one machine: "You cannot run two containers of the same service on a single host because they will collide and attempt to listen on the same port. (no bin packing)" So, what's the sense in doing that instead of one bigger container?
- biot 10y agoThey're reimplementing the actor model using Docker containers. Let it crash.
- bpicolo 10y agoThe goal is just having a compute pool where you don't have to care at all where things are actually running. It definitely depends on the use case, but I could imagine more, smaller units allowing for more granular (and therefore a bit more cost-effective) scaling.
- abalone 10y agoBut isn't that actually less granular that one container that can size itself optimally? I.e. it could use as little or a much resources available on the machine. And it would eliminate any redundancies among the containers of the same type.
- bpicolo 10y agoIf that's the case you would hit separate containers fighting over resource usage though, no? Seems better to give them a specific block they can use all of.
- bpicolo 10y agoThe goal is just having a compute pool where you don't have to care at all where things are actually running. It definitely depends on the use case, but I could imagine more, smaller units allowing for more granular (and therefore a bit more cost-effective) scaling.