6 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoI appreciate the candid nature of your post and the pragmatic opinion; thanks for sharing. :)
- tacticus 13y agoPerhaps 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 agobtrfs 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 :)