4 ms·
Any chance you can elaborate on: "(i.e. powerful as in ability to do something, not in terms of performance)" Do you mean smaller units of functionality which
by jaynate 13y ago
Any chance you can elaborate on:
"(i.e. powerful as in ability to do something, not in terms of performance)"
Do you mean smaller units of functionality which perform at good levels? For example, I wouldn't want to deploy a large, monolithic service this way?
- ihsw 13y agoThe need for containers is more narrow in scope than simply the size of them, but that they allow very simple isolation on a file-system level. It allows a very strict separation of concerns without requiring the sacrifice of resources of spinning up another VM.
- derefr 13y agoOne thing that occurs to me: containers don't get their own network stacks, so you can't use a transport-level protocol (e.g. SCTP) in a Docker "guest" if it isn't programmed into the Docker host kernel. Whereas VMs are routed to at the network level, so they can do whatever they want with the packets they receive.
- dhaivatpandya 13y agoI meant to say that VMs can do a deeper level of process isolation. They also perform complete hardware virtualization, which means you can run a completely different OS inside the VM. However, in terms of performance, VMs are not necessarily faster than containers at all tasks.