3 ms·

Docker may be over-used, but, when managing hundreds of instances of machines, it's really useful to have deploys/redeploys/updates: - Immutable (the instance i

Docker may be over-used, but, when managing hundreds of instances of machines, it's really useful to have deploys/redeploys/updates: - Immutable (the instance is effectively frozen as an image) - Has dependencies baked in (don't have to worry about whether the app was run on xenial/bionic,etc.) - Identical (people are disincentivized to make ad-hoc modifications to instances)

pc86 7y ago
> when managing hundreds of instances of machines Well there's the rub. Most developers aren't going to manage hundreds of machines. My current company has thousands of customers, over a hundred employees, and makes tens of millions in profit. We've got two dozen servers (VMs) and obviously less than that in actual machines. The scale at which you need hundreds of instances is probably when it does make sense to use something like Docker.
- rjkennedy98 7y ago
  A lot of developers work in big companies. My last company had 2400 OpenShift cpu cores assigned just to unused OpenShift projects. I'm sure the number of used OpenShift cores was in the tens of thousands. For instance just a Kafka consumer that needs to sync a few billion records to cassandra and ElasticSearch by itself may use 50 cores.
  - baroomba 7y ago
    Also, a lot of smaller (and mid-sized) companies end up with tons of instances and all kinds of complex server infrastructure because their code is mind-bogglingly inefficient and falls over without it. You either fix their mountain of broken shit or you throw "cloud" at it. Relatedly, I've seen a lot of "we need to avoid & transition away from SQL database servers, they're slow and don't scale" in the wild when the problem is actually that the way SQL is being used is not simply not-advanced, but incompetent. Hundreds to thousands of queries per page load for no good reason, useless caching, little attention paid to indices, that kind of thing. Often Rails is involved. :-/

pc86 7y ago

> when managing hundreds of instances of machines Well there's the rub. Most developers aren't going to manage hundreds of machines. My current company has thousands of customers, over a hundred employees, and makes tens of millions in profit. We've got two dozen servers (VMs) and obviously less than that in actual machines. The scale at which you need hundreds of instances is probably when it does make sense to use something like Docker.

rjkennedy98 7y ago
A lot of developers work in big companies. My last company had 2400 OpenShift cpu cores assigned just to unused OpenShift projects. I'm sure the number of used OpenShift cores was in the tens of thousands. For instance just a Kafka consumer that needs to sync a few billion records to cassandra and ElasticSearch by itself may use 50 cores.
- baroomba 7y ago
  Also, a lot of smaller (and mid-sized) companies end up with tons of instances and all kinds of complex server infrastructure because their code is mind-bogglingly inefficient and falls over without it. You either fix their mountain of broken shit or you throw "cloud" at it. Relatedly, I've seen a lot of "we need to avoid & transition away from SQL database servers, they're slow and don't scale" in the wild when the problem is actually that the way SQL is being used is not simply not-advanced, but incompetent. Hundreds to thousands of queries per page load for no good reason, useless caching, little attention paid to indices, that kind of thing. Often Rails is involved. :-/