5 ms·

Totally agree that Docker is made for deploying to servers. But the disk space critique doesn’t hit for me. Even very nice SSD’s are cheap enough that 500 MB is

by cmckn 6y ago

Totally agree that Docker is made for deploying to servers. But the disk space critique doesn’t hit for me. Even very nice SSD’s are cheap enough that 500 MB is negligible. My internet connection also makes downloading a large docker image no bigger of a deal than downloading Chrome, YMMV. I think the necessity of a VM when using Docker on Mac and Windows is the primary reason that running your “normal” apps in a container isn’t the right move.

RedShift1 6y ago
The problem isn't 500 MB disk footprint, it's all the RAM memory going to waste when loading in redundant libraries. Chrome already is a memory hog on its own, imagine all applications suddenly bringing in their versions of their libraries.
- tomxor 6y ago
  Also the network requirements to install and update such large containers is a problem, a lot of people don't appreciate how slow the internet is in most of the world compared to those with access to any kind of fiber end point.. this extends to similar concepts like snap packages.
- cmckn 6y ago
  RAM is the same situation as disk for me — I have plenty to waste. Again, not advocating Chrome in a container, I don’t even run Chrome outside of a container. I just think it’s odd to get hung up on these sorts of resource requirements given the state of computing.
  - RedShift1 6y ago
    You may have plenty of resources but there are many that have to "make due" with 8 GB, 4 GB or even less RAM.
    - cmckn 6y ago
      Totally fair, but I think the Venn diagram of folks that use Docker and folks that have 4GB of RAM is pretty slim. If the resources are that limited, Docker might not be the best choice for running anything. Related: Chrome on 4GB of RAM sounds painful. Thoughts and prayers to those folks.
bayindirh 6y ago
> Even very nice SSD’s are cheap enough that 500 MB is negligible. However a nice SSD with a respectable TBW value is not still cheap. a 860 Pro is almost twice the cost of a 860 Evo. Pro provides twice the TBW value. > My internet connection also makes downloading a large docker image no bigger of a deal than downloading Chrome, YMMV. Not everyone of us has pipes that fat to our homes which provide sub 10ms pings and almost LAN-speed access to rest of the world. My office workstation's network is limited by my network card but, my home has a much slower connection. I wish that internet on this planet to be a full-fat-tree network but, we're not there yet.
- piaste 6y ago
  > However a nice SSD with a respectable TBW value is not still cheap. a 860 Pro is almost twice the cost of a 860 Evo. Pro provides twice the TBW value. TBW is almost never a concern for desktop users. The Evo has 600 TBW endurance per TB of storage, that would be a full disk rewrite every day for two years. You will never download enough Docker images for personal use to burn out your 860 Evo before you would have replaced it anyway. (For those unfamiliar with Docker, spinning up a 500MB image ten times doesn't write 5GB to disk!)
  - bayindirh 6y ago
    > TBW is almost never a concern for desktop users. You're right however, most of the people who'll use this kind of setup is not ordinary desktop users. My desktop has 4 disks (2 SSDs and 2 HDDs). My write rate for "Home" SSD is 3TB/yr. To keep the value low, I've moved VMs, big downloads and other stuff to one of the HDDs. System is on another SSD and it's cumulative write was about 3TB in 8 years but, I moved logs and high-write portions to another HDD to keep that value low. 3-4TB / year on the other hand is pretty in line with a Windows 10 installation's behavior when used by a normal desktop user, as intended. >You will never download enough Docker images for personal use to burn out your 860 Evo before you would have replaced it anyway. Considering other stuff I do, I could easily double or triple the amount of writes in my Home SSD, but VMs and other stuff already can sit on the RAM once running so there's no speed problem. While write amplification is not a big concern anymore, building software and other small file operations can accumulate fast, so I still can't trust a SSD blindly. On the replacing of drives, while a dd or rsync is pretty straightforward for a seasoned Linux user, I don't prefer to change hardware just for the sake of it, or abuse it because it's cheap and can be replaced on a whim. At the end of the day, I'd rather use my system efficiently rather than recklessly both in terms of resources and endurance, because being able to rely on your system is underrated imho. Because of my Job, we torture systems up to and beyond their design limits and a little optimization can go a long way in these scenarios. I like to apply that knowledge to my systems to extend their useful life.

by cmckn 6y ago

RedShift1 6y ago

The problem isn't 500 MB disk footprint, it's all the RAM memory going to waste when loading in redundant libraries. Chrome already is a memory hog on its own, imagine all applications suddenly bringing in their versions of their libraries.

tomxor 6y ago
Also the network requirements to install and update such large containers is a problem, a lot of people don't appreciate how slow the internet is in most of the world compared to those with access to any kind of fiber end point.. this extends to similar concepts like snap packages.
cmckn 6y ago
RAM is the same situation as disk for me — I have plenty to waste. Again, not advocating Chrome in a container, I don’t even run Chrome outside of a container. I just think it’s odd to get hung up on these sorts of resource requirements given the state of computing.
- RedShift1 6y ago
  You may have plenty of resources but there are many that have to "make due" with 8 GB, 4 GB or even less RAM.
  - cmckn 6y ago
    Totally fair, but I think the Venn diagram of folks that use Docker and folks that have 4GB of RAM is pretty slim. If the resources are that limited, Docker might not be the best choice for running anything. Related: Chrome on 4GB of RAM sounds painful. Thoughts and prayers to those folks.

bayindirh 6y ago

> Even very nice SSD’s are cheap enough that 500 MB is negligible. However a nice SSD with a respectable TBW value is not still cheap. a 860 Pro is almost twice the cost of a 860 Evo. Pro provides twice the TBW value. > My internet connection also makes downloading a large docker image no bigger of a deal than downloading Chrome, YMMV. Not everyone of us has pipes that fat to our homes which provide sub 10ms pings and almost LAN-speed access to rest of the world. My office workstation's network is limited by my network card but, my home has a much slower connection. I wish that internet on this planet to be a full-fat-tree network but, we're not there yet.

piaste 6y ago
> However a nice SSD with a respectable TBW value is not still cheap. a 860 Pro is almost twice the cost of a 860 Evo. Pro provides twice the TBW value. TBW is almost never a concern for desktop users. The Evo has 600 TBW endurance per TB of storage, that would be a full disk rewrite every day for two years. You will never download enough Docker images for personal use to burn out your 860 Evo before you would have replaced it anyway. (For those unfamiliar with Docker, spinning up a 500MB image ten times doesn't write 5GB to disk!)
- bayindirh 6y ago
  > TBW is almost never a concern for desktop users. You're right however, most of the people who'll use this kind of setup is not ordinary desktop users. My desktop has 4 disks (2 SSDs and 2 HDDs). My write rate for "Home" SSD is 3TB/yr. To keep the value low, I've moved VMs, big downloads and other stuff to one of the HDDs. System is on another SSD and it's cumulative write was about 3TB in 8 years but, I moved logs and high-write portions to another HDD to keep that value low. 3-4TB / year on the other hand is pretty in line with a Windows 10 installation's behavior when used by a normal desktop user, as intended. >You will never download enough Docker images for personal use to burn out your 860 Evo before you would have replaced it anyway. Considering other stuff I do, I could easily double or triple the amount of writes in my Home SSD, but VMs and other stuff already can sit on the RAM once running so there's no speed problem. While write amplification is not a big concern anymore, building software and other small file operations can accumulate fast, so I still can't trust a SSD blindly. On the replacing of drives, while a dd or rsync is pretty straightforward for a seasoned Linux user, I don't prefer to change hardware just for the sake of it, or abuse it because it's cheap and can be replaced on a whim. At the end of the day, I'd rather use my system efficiently rather than recklessly both in terms of resources and endurance, because being able to rely on your system is underrated imho. Because of my Job, we torture systems up to and beyond their design limits and a little optimization can go a long way in these scenarios. I like to apply that knowledge to my systems to extend their useful life.