5 ms·

Would you prefer this over Traefik for a simple docker-compose setup?

by yetanother-1 3y ago

Grimburger 3y ago
> a simple docker-compose Abstraction at it's finest.
- 9dev 3y ago
  What strikes you as difficult with compose files? In fact, I would say it’s the most concise format to describe a desired state of running applications currently available.
  - Grimburger 3y ago
    Nothing is difficult about them, compose is easy enough that you can grok it in a day. You saw the lament in my comment though and that speaks a deeper truth. If WSL took off quick enough we could have had lxc as the main player rather than the bastardisation of lxc that is docker.com For an open source project they make it incredibly hard to access what are essentially text files for containerisation setups on windows or mac? https://github.com/docker/hub-feedback/issues/1103 https://github.com/docker/hub-feedback/issues/1103
    - 9dev 3y ago
      Compose is an open source project entirely separate to hub, though. The compose file specification is versioned separately, and will outlive Docker, probably. So I don’t quite get your criticism?
      - Grimburger 3y ago
        How are you using compose without docker? They are joined at the hip, criticism of one is criticism of the other. The days of cheap money are over, it's inevitable that certain SaaS companies will start tightening the screws on their users to match the returns they can get with cash in a bank. I just wish lxc (which docker was built off) got a chance to gain traction. It's miles ahead in DX and sure they serve different functionalities but can be used the same and the network effects can't be understated.
        9dev 3y ago
        No, that isn't true. Compose can absolutely be used with Docker replacements, and there is no reason you couldn't create an implementation for LXC, for example.
        Grimburger 3y ago
        > Compose can absolutely be used with Docker replacements Can you point to some examples of this? LXC has profiles which can be mixed and matched for containers, it's got far more extensibility, compose files are a one-shot creation that gets copy/pasted/modified all over the place (we're all guilty of this), you need to read every single compose file and reboot unlike additively popping another profile on a linux container while it's running.
        9dev 3y ago
        Using Docker Compose with Podman: https://www.redhat.com/sysadmin/podman-docker-compose https://www.redhat.com/sysadmin/podman-docker-compose Using containerd: https://github.com/mc256/containerd-compose https://github.com/mc256/containerd-compose Using nerdctl: https://github.com/containerd/nerdctl https://github.com/containerd/nerdctl I'd really disagree that compose files are somehow one-shot, or blindly modified. To the contrary, really, we have them checked in with the source code. Upon deployment to the cluster, the (running) services will be intelligently updated or replaced (in a rolling manner, causing zero downtime). LXC might be more elegant, but I have no idea what simple, file-based format I could use to let engineers describe the environment their app should run in without compose. I need something that even junior devs can start up with a single command, that can be placed in the VCS along with the code, and that will not require deep Linux knowledge to get running. Open for suggestions here, really.
- notpushkin 3y ago
  Unironically this. After trying Kubernetes, Terraform, Ansible, and various proprietary PaaS config formats, I've grown to love Compose files' simplicity.
  - segfaltnh 3y ago
    Yes, when compared to extreme complexity, compose is simpler. But it's hardly simple.
    - notpushkin 3y ago
      I'll happily try anything simpler than that if you give me an idea what that might be. Not trying to be salty or anything – I really think Compose hits the sweet spot of abstraction which is less complex than both the monstrosities I listed and the ad hoc Bash scripts copying code over SSH and restarting services approach (so, the other extremity of declarative v. imperative).
  - oriettaxx 3y ago
    so I guess you are on Docker Swarm?
    - notpushkin 3y ago
      Actually yeah! A single node is usually enough for me though, but I like the ability to throw in more nodes as needed (more or less painlessly, as long as you properly guard services that need persistent volumes with a label constraint). Shameless plug: I also make a Docker Swarm dashboard, check it out: https://lunni.dev/ https://lunni.dev/
      - oriettaxx 3y ago
        I am on docker swarm, too, and I like it. Lunni? cool, thank you for sharing it, I'll give it a try How to navigate the docs? in https://lunni.dev https://lunni.dev I only reach https://lunni.dev/docs/install/ https://lunni.dev/docs/install/ while I see a lot of good docs https://gitlab.com/lunni/lunni.dev/-/tree/master/docs https://gitlab.com/lunni/lunni.dev/-/tree/master/docs ...maybe not ready for the website?
ljm 3y ago
I didn’t think I would see traefik and simple in the same sentence.

Would you prefer this over Traefik for a simple docker-compose setup?

Grimburger 3y ago

> a simple docker-compose Abstraction at it's finest.

9dev 3y ago
What strikes you as difficult with compose files? In fact, I would say it’s the most concise format to describe a desired state of running applications currently available.
- Grimburger 3y ago
  Nothing is difficult about them, compose is easy enough that you can grok it in a day. You saw the lament in my comment though and that speaks a deeper truth. If WSL took off quick enough we could have had lxc as the main player rather than the bastardisation of lxc that is docker.com For an open source project they make it incredibly hard to access what are essentially text files for containerisation setups on windows or mac? https://github.com/docker/hub-feedback/issues/1103 https://github.com/docker/hub-feedback/issues/1103
  - 9dev 3y ago
    Compose is an open source project entirely separate to hub, though. The compose file specification is versioned separately, and will outlive Docker, probably. So I don’t quite get your criticism?
    - Grimburger 3y ago
      How are you using compose without docker? They are joined at the hip, criticism of one is criticism of the other. The days of cheap money are over, it's inevitable that certain SaaS companies will start tightening the screws on their users to match the returns they can get with cash in a bank. I just wish lxc (which docker was built off) got a chance to gain traction. It's miles ahead in DX and sure they serve different functionalities but can be used the same and the network effects can't be understated.
      - 9dev 3y ago
        No, that isn't true. Compose can absolutely be used with Docker replacements, and there is no reason you couldn't create an implementation for LXC, for example.
        Grimburger 3y ago
        > Compose can absolutely be used with Docker replacements Can you point to some examples of this? LXC has profiles which can be mixed and matched for containers, it's got far more extensibility, compose files are a one-shot creation that gets copy/pasted/modified all over the place (we're all guilty of this), you need to read every single compose file and reboot unlike additively popping another profile on a linux container while it's running.
        9dev 3y ago
        Using Docker Compose with Podman: https://www.redhat.com/sysadmin/podman-docker-compose https://www.redhat.com/sysadmin/podman-docker-compose Using containerd: https://github.com/mc256/containerd-compose https://github.com/mc256/containerd-compose Using nerdctl: https://github.com/containerd/nerdctl https://github.com/containerd/nerdctl I'd really disagree that compose files are somehow one-shot, or blindly modified. To the contrary, really, we have them checked in with the source code. Upon deployment to the cluster, the (running) services will be intelligently updated or replaced (in a rolling manner, causing zero downtime). LXC might be more elegant, but I have no idea what simple, file-based format I could use to let engineers describe the environment their app should run in without compose. I need something that even junior devs can start up with a single command, that can be placed in the VCS along with the code, and that will not require deep Linux knowledge to get running. Open for suggestions here, really.
notpushkin 3y ago
Unironically this. After trying Kubernetes, Terraform, Ansible, and various proprietary PaaS config formats, I've grown to love Compose files' simplicity.
- segfaltnh 3y ago
  Yes, when compared to extreme complexity, compose is simpler. But it's hardly simple.
  - notpushkin 3y ago
    I'll happily try anything simpler than that if you give me an idea what that might be. Not trying to be salty or anything – I really think Compose hits the sweet spot of abstraction which is less complex than both the monstrosities I listed and the ad hoc Bash scripts copying code over SSH and restarting services approach (so, the other extremity of declarative v. imperative).
- oriettaxx 3y ago
  so I guess you are on Docker Swarm?
  - notpushkin 3y ago
    Actually yeah! A single node is usually enough for me though, but I like the ability to throw in more nodes as needed (more or less painlessly, as long as you properly guard services that need persistent volumes with a label constraint). Shameless plug: I also make a Docker Swarm dashboard, check it out: https://lunni.dev/ https://lunni.dev/
    - oriettaxx 3y ago
      I am on docker swarm, too, and I like it. Lunni? cool, thank you for sharing it, I'll give it a try How to navigate the docs? in https://lunni.dev https://lunni.dev I only reach https://lunni.dev/docs/install/ https://lunni.dev/docs/install/ while I see a lot of good docs https://gitlab.com/lunni/lunni.dev/-/tree/master/docs https://gitlab.com/lunni/lunni.dev/-/tree/master/docs ...maybe not ready for the website?

ljm 3y ago

I didn’t think I would see traefik and simple in the same sentence.