4 ms·

When is the AUFS requirement going to be removed? Ubuntu is going to drop it in the near future. So the idea of rebooting all servers to install a custom kerne

by codexon 13y ago

When is the AUFS requirement going to be removed? Ubuntu is going to drop it in the near future. So the idea of rebooting all servers to install a custom kernel with AUFS makes me not even want to try it.

eikenberry 13y ago
Any references on why they are dropping it and what they are replacing it with?
- nickstinemates 13y ago
  Replacing with <insert your choice here> via plugin[1] 1: http://blog.docker.io/2013/08/getting-to-docker-1-0/ http://blog.docker.io/2013/08/getting-to-docker-1-0/
- WestCoastJustin 13y ago
  I assume they are dropping it to allow much wider adoption. Docker makes use of AUFS for many of its cool features, like quickly spinning up containers, snapshots, diffs, etc. Ubuntu is dropping AUFS support in its stock kernels [1], and RHEL (CentOS, SL, etc) does not have support for AUFS in their stock kernels [2], and it is a major pain to try and add it (i.e. not even a simple recompile, you need custom patches, etc). So, given these two issues, you run the risk of alienating your user base pretty quickly. [1] http://ubuntu.5.x6.nabble.com/RFC-AUFS-disabled-for-12-04-td4532153.html http://ubuntu.5.x6.nabble.com/RFC-AUFS-disabled-for-12-04-td... [2] https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/issues/172 https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/issues/172
  - eikenberry 13y ago
    I was talking about why Ubuntu was dropping AUFS, not why docker was. I've been following the UnionFS area in Linux for awhile now and AUFS still seems to be the only viable option. So I was asking to find out if Ubuntu expects one of the alternatives to be ready soon.
    - shykes 13y ago
      Speaking as a dotCloud employee: yes, it's also our opinion that aufs is still the most viable option in a production setting. Finding a permanent solution to the clusterfuck of union filesystems in linux seems as likely as peace in the middle-east: those with a viable solution are powerless to impose it; those who could change the status quo seem paralyzed by bias, personal feuds or simply having other fish to fry. Meanwhile the rest of the World has thrown their hands up and stopped waiting. Aufs works in production, moving on. Speaking as a Docker maintainer: we'll add support for whatever our users want most, and makes it easy to run docker everywhere.
      - mh- 13y ago
        I appreciate the candid nature of your post and the pragmatic opinion; thanks for sharing. :)
      - tacticus 13y ago
        Perhaps something like btrfs could work. By creating your base image in a subvol or individual file you can then snapshot that and mount the snapshot into the container? additionally it lets you piggy back on the stuff that inktank and openstack are doing with ceph and btrfs distributed storage with cow images for VMs for your container servers
        shykes 13y ago
        btrfs is one of the alternatives we plan on supporting. In fact there is already an experimental branch with btrfs support. However, wearing my user / operator hat, if I had to choose I would stick to aufs in production. If I had to switch (and the apparently stupid move by ubuntu to drop it might indeed force me to), I would first try to use more proven code, like lvm or raid/dm. btrfs and overlayfs are neat, promising technology for the future - that place where our production deployments can't go :)
nickstinemates 13y ago
Soon. It's a core use case with a lot of interest around it. There have been experimental branches created to try out other filesystems and no major issues were found. It's a matter of getting the API right, which is what the Docker team and Community are working on together as I type this.
- codexon 13y ago
  What would you guess the preferred filesystem would be when this gets implemented? Btrfs?
  - nickstinemates 13y ago
    If I had a crystal ball, I'd bet it'd depend on the Docker Host and what the canonical union filesystem choice is. What I've found is that the answer/preferred answer to your question is ultimately quite fragmented across organization and application types.

by codexon 13y ago

eikenberry 13y ago

Any references on why they are dropping it and what they are replacing it with?

nickstinemates 13y ago
Replacing with <insert your choice here> via plugin[1] 1: http://blog.docker.io/2013/08/getting-to-docker-1-0/ http://blog.docker.io/2013/08/getting-to-docker-1-0/
WestCoastJustin 13y ago
I assume they are dropping it to allow much wider adoption. Docker makes use of AUFS for many of its cool features, like quickly spinning up containers, snapshots, diffs, etc. Ubuntu is dropping AUFS support in its stock kernels [1], and RHEL (CentOS, SL, etc) does not have support for AUFS in their stock kernels [2], and it is a major pain to try and add it (i.e. not even a simple recompile, you need custom patches, etc). So, given these two issues, you run the risk of alienating your user base pretty quickly. [1] http://ubuntu.5.x6.nabble.com/RFC-AUFS-disabled-for-12-04-td4532153.html http://ubuntu.5.x6.nabble.com/RFC-AUFS-disabled-for-12-04-td... [2] https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/issues/172 https://github.com/dotcloud/docker/issues/172
- eikenberry 13y ago
  I was talking about why Ubuntu was dropping AUFS, not why docker was. I've been following the UnionFS area in Linux for awhile now and AUFS still seems to be the only viable option. So I was asking to find out if Ubuntu expects one of the alternatives to be ready soon.
  - shykes 13y ago
    Speaking as a dotCloud employee: yes, it's also our opinion that aufs is still the most viable option in a production setting. Finding a permanent solution to the clusterfuck of union filesystems in linux seems as likely as peace in the middle-east: those with a viable solution are powerless to impose it; those who could change the status quo seem paralyzed by bias, personal feuds or simply having other fish to fry. Meanwhile the rest of the World has thrown their hands up and stopped waiting. Aufs works in production, moving on. Speaking as a Docker maintainer: we'll add support for whatever our users want most, and makes it easy to run docker everywhere.
    - mh- 13y ago
      I appreciate the candid nature of your post and the pragmatic opinion; thanks for sharing. :)
    - tacticus 13y ago
      Perhaps something like btrfs could work. By creating your base image in a subvol or individual file you can then snapshot that and mount the snapshot into the container? additionally it lets you piggy back on the stuff that inktank and openstack are doing with ceph and btrfs distributed storage with cow images for VMs for your container servers
      - shykes 13y ago
        btrfs is one of the alternatives we plan on supporting. In fact there is already an experimental branch with btrfs support. However, wearing my user / operator hat, if I had to choose I would stick to aufs in production. If I had to switch (and the apparently stupid move by ubuntu to drop it might indeed force me to), I would first try to use more proven code, like lvm or raid/dm. btrfs and overlayfs are neat, promising technology for the future - that place where our production deployments can't go :)

nickstinemates 13y ago

Soon. It's a core use case with a lot of interest around it. There have been experimental branches created to try out other filesystems and no major issues were found. It's a matter of getting the API right, which is what the Docker team and Community are working on together as I type this.

codexon 13y ago
What would you guess the preferred filesystem would be when this gets implemented? Btrfs?
- nickstinemates 13y ago
  If I had a crystal ball, I'd bet it'd depend on the Docker Host and what the canonical union filesystem choice is. What I've found is that the answer/preferred answer to your question is ultimately quite fragmented across organization and application types.