5 ms·

If you're just developing against Linux, I've been using LXC 1.0 for a while now for quickly spinning up and destroying dev environments, and I think it works r

by rpcope1 10y ago

If you're just developing against Linux, I've been using LXC 1.0 for a while now for quickly spinning up and destroying dev environments, and I think it works really well. LXD (which is essentially LXC 2.0 + goodies) is also great, and makes a lot of that easier and adds features (including a lot stuff that makes things like orchestration significantly easier), but it has a little less documentation right now. I think LXC has some really excellent advantages of both being super easy to create/destroy quickly (and containers being very easy on resources), while at the same time running a full system in the container with an init and everything (as opposed to Docker where it's typically just one application). The command line tools are pretty simple and straightforward (at least for LXC 1.0), and I find it a lot less fuss than using VMWare or VirtualBox in a similar role.

throw2016 10y ago
LXC best mimics a VM environment so its a nearly seamless transition for VM workloads and setups. I have noticed a lot of people are catching on and using LXC more and more now compared to a couple of years ago where there was massive confusion about containers. The biggest difference is Docker does not run the init in the container, LXC does so it behaves more like a lightweight VM. LXC also has proper support for standard networking and storage in the container. It's self contained.
- rpcope1 10y ago
  Yeah, I totally agree. Speaking of networking, I really love the plug and play nature of LXC/LXD around networking, which has enabled me to do a lot of interesting things in conjunction with virtual Ethernet bridges and veth devices along with OpenVPN and netem for latency simulation. In particular I was able to simulate a really big network of devices (on their own private "LAN") across a few simple desktop PCs, by attaching each container to one or more bridges and then on the host joining the bridges across systems using OpenVPN TAP devices. I was able to simulate a full blown network and test some attack scenarios and better understand some of the network dynamics. This isn't something that's a huge use-case applicable everywhere, but man the flexibility is super super handy, and I haven't seen many tools out there provide the same amount of possibilities LXC does (like all of the a la carte cgroups functionality).

by rpcope1 10y ago

throw2016 10y ago

LXC best mimics a VM environment so its a nearly seamless transition for VM workloads and setups. I have noticed a lot of people are catching on and using LXC more and more now compared to a couple of years ago where there was massive confusion about containers. The biggest difference is Docker does not run the init in the container, LXC does so it behaves more like a lightweight VM. LXC also has proper support for standard networking and storage in the container. It's self contained.

rpcope1 10y ago
Yeah, I totally agree. Speaking of networking, I really love the plug and play nature of LXC/LXD around networking, which has enabled me to do a lot of interesting things in conjunction with virtual Ethernet bridges and veth devices along with OpenVPN and netem for latency simulation. In particular I was able to simulate a really big network of devices (on their own private "LAN") across a few simple desktop PCs, by attaching each container to one or more bridges and then on the host joining the bridges across systems using OpenVPN TAP devices. I was able to simulate a full blown network and test some attack scenarios and better understand some of the network dynamics. This isn't something that's a huge use-case applicable everywhere, but man the flexibility is super super handy, and I haven't seen many tools out there provide the same amount of possibilities LXC does (like all of the a la carte cgroups functionality).