4 ms·

I do not understand "orthogonality", sorry. I think in terms of ldd's output, and it tells me that nothing fundamentally new could be created. It either package

I do not understand "orthogonality", sorry. I think in terms of ldd's output, and it tells me that nothing fundamentally new could be created. It either packages in /usr or stuff in /usr/local/ You might mount /usr as uniounfs - same for many jails, but you cannot undo dynamic linking, at least statically linked ruby is nonsense (but static linking sometimes is a good idea). I also cannot understand "containerization" why a snapshot created by tar is not a container? The assumption that you could reduce /lib is naive. Yes, /usr/lib could be reduced, but only by removing gnome stuff and some fancies. I have tried to make minimalist but compatible system. It doesn't happen. Things like kerberos, sasl, ldap, pam messes everything up. I ended up with almost exactly the "minimum install". Paraphrasing a bit "dependencies! dependencies! dependencies!" and minimal install of Fedora or Ubuntu Server is almost optimal.

X4 13y ago
If ZFS Snapshots were deployable to other machines in a network, then it would be really superior. Is that possible? By deploy I mean pushing snapshots into other machine's zpools, migrating them and lastly applying them. So that at the end you have a copy of the other server. Well there's still no usable (web) gui for managing zfs (tell me what you want, but that IS wha is needed to make zfs more popular). Would a minimal install of [your_server] into kvm give more rough performance than LXC+Docker? One downside of Docker & LXC is that applications CAN breakout of the "jail" and affect the host machine. The docker guys told me about that fact and that they will work on that in the future. After all that fizzbuzz, I'm not sure anymore, maybe chef/puppet/ansible or salt would be a much better solution than dealing with bits "manually". Because that would be the Model Driven Approach.
- dschiptsov 13y ago
  Would a minimal install of [your_server] into kvm give more rough performance than LXC+Docker? The question is what for? Virtualization and production simply does not match.) Close to so-called real life notion might be one like this: some guys managed to get funding for an mix of buzzwords they not fully understood themselves, especially an OS design. But after placing Minimum Viable Buzzwords website they got a lot of hype, so, magically, it became a "great idea" a "big thing" being absolutely nothing new and solving no real problems. There is no problem with installation of packages or tarbals on the same system, through network, on multiple hosts, whatever. As long as it is the same version of the system. There is nothing to fix. It is optimal already and package managers and ports systems doing the job well enough, taking care of dependencies, security updates, restarts, etc. All the buzz and hype is about people who do does not know and do not want to know how underlying system works, what are the basic ideas, etc. For such guys the promise of a simple interface (they can see it is simple on the site) which requires no thinking or understanding, is, of course, a piece of cake. This is exactly how we have all the piles upon piles of Java crap. There is no need to think or understand and deployment is easy - just dumb all the shit in the same dir. Now we have all the mess and some smartases talking "JVM optimizations" but forgetting to mention, than a slight change in workload, leave alone the code, will make all their prior assumption invalid. OK, fuck it.

X4 13y ago

If ZFS Snapshots were deployable to other machines in a network, then it would be really superior. Is that possible? By deploy I mean pushing snapshots into other machine's zpools, migrating them and lastly applying them. So that at the end you have a copy of the other server. Well there's still no usable (web) gui for managing zfs (tell me what you want, but that IS wha is needed to make zfs more popular). Would a minimal install of [your_server] into kvm give more rough performance than LXC+Docker? One downside of Docker & LXC is that applications CAN breakout of the "jail" and affect the host machine. The docker guys told me about that fact and that they will work on that in the future. After all that fizzbuzz, I'm not sure anymore, maybe chef/puppet/ansible or salt would be a much better solution than dealing with bits "manually". Because that would be the Model Driven Approach.

dschiptsov 13y ago
Would a minimal install of [your_server] into kvm give more rough performance than LXC+Docker? The question is what for? Virtualization and production simply does not match.) Close to so-called real life notion might be one like this: some guys managed to get funding for an mix of buzzwords they not fully understood themselves, especially an OS design. But after placing Minimum Viable Buzzwords website they got a lot of hype, so, magically, it became a "great idea" a "big thing" being absolutely nothing new and solving no real problems. There is no problem with installation of packages or tarbals on the same system, through network, on multiple hosts, whatever. As long as it is the same version of the system. There is nothing to fix. It is optimal already and package managers and ports systems doing the job well enough, taking care of dependencies, security updates, restarts, etc. All the buzz and hype is about people who do does not know and do not want to know how underlying system works, what are the basic ideas, etc. For such guys the promise of a simple interface (they can see it is simple on the site) which requires no thinking or understanding, is, of course, a piece of cake. This is exactly how we have all the piles upon piles of Java crap. There is no need to think or understand and deployment is easy - just dumb all the shit in the same dir. Now we have all the mess and some smartases talking "JVM optimizations" but forgetting to mention, than a slight change in workload, leave alone the code, will make all their prior assumption invalid. OK, fuck it.