4 ms·

Docker in itself is not that revolutionary. Docker AND Kubernetes combined though is such a powerful pattern. They bring the best of orchestration and binary m

Docker in itself is not that revolutionary. Docker AND Kubernetes combined though is such a powerful pattern. They bring the best of orchestration and binary management. It becomes a single API to scale horizontally and vertically. Kubernetes is really what will make container work.

jrs95 8y ago
I'm a big fan of Kubernetes and that's what I use in production, but to be honest I probably wouldn't if there weren't good managed solutions available. Nomad & Consul seems much simpler and achieves many of the same things (though you'd need to do a bit of extra glue around DNS to avoid doing SRV lookups in your service clients)
- tdbgamer 8y ago
  Did you look into Google App Engine, Heroku, etc.? Those were pretty seamless managed experiences for me, of course you pay for the convenience though.
  - jrs95 8y ago
    Not really, those solutions weren’t quite flexible enough to do what we needed to do. Google Kubernetes Engine has been great though, not much more effort than something like Heroku but way more powerful.
barrkel 8y ago
I fully agree. Docker always felt to me like a couple of lego blocks (image repositories and a single API for managing containers on a single host), when you needed a full box like Kubernetes (auto-restarting and scaling, resource negotiation, efficient bin-packing of containers across hosts, a single API for deploying across a cluster (possibly multiple, federated), declarative description of desired runtime state with allowance for 4-eyes control of configuration, rather than a bunch of random imperative commands). Docker as a pseudo-VM where creation is incremental and intermediate states between Dockerfile lines are cached is really nifty for development, but the end result is little different than tar-ing up a filesystem after doing a clean box deployment. I think this bit is the sugar that got a lot of people hooked on Docker, even though it's not actually the good bit in the end.

jrs95 8y ago

I'm a big fan of Kubernetes and that's what I use in production, but to be honest I probably wouldn't if there weren't good managed solutions available. Nomad & Consul seems much simpler and achieves many of the same things (though you'd need to do a bit of extra glue around DNS to avoid doing SRV lookups in your service clients)

tdbgamer 8y ago
Did you look into Google App Engine, Heroku, etc.? Those were pretty seamless managed experiences for me, of course you pay for the convenience though.
- jrs95 8y ago
  Not really, those solutions weren’t quite flexible enough to do what we needed to do. Google Kubernetes Engine has been great though, not much more effort than something like Heroku but way more powerful.

barrkel 8y ago

I fully agree. Docker always felt to me like a couple of lego blocks (image repositories and a single API for managing containers on a single host), when you needed a full box like Kubernetes (auto-restarting and scaling, resource negotiation, efficient bin-packing of containers across hosts, a single API for deploying across a cluster (possibly multiple, federated), declarative description of desired runtime state with allowance for 4-eyes control of configuration, rather than a bunch of random imperative commands). Docker as a pseudo-VM where creation is incremental and intermediate states between Dockerfile lines are cached is really nifty for development, but the end result is little different than tar-ing up a filesystem after doing a clean box deployment. I think this bit is the sugar that got a lot of people hooked on Docker, even though it's not actually the good bit in the end.