5 ms·
Indeed. One way you can use Docker in production[1] is one container per machine: even when you're not using the containers to split resources, the ability to s
by seldo 13y ago
Indeed. One way you can use Docker in production[1] is one container per machine: even when you're not using the containers to split resources, the ability to snapshot and move an application and all of its dependencies in a single, lightweight, easily deployed package is very exciting. And because there's no translation etc. happening, running a single container is pretty much identical, performance-wise, to running it directly on the machine[2].
[1] dotCloud don't actually yet recommend running Docker in production, but if you did...
[2] This was part of what Mailgun (part of Rackspace) said in their presentation at the Docker workshop in SF today.
- jaytaylor 13y agoYou can actually do the same thing with LXC containers; it is trivial to rsync a snapshot or compressed archive of a snapshot to another host machine and run it there.
- pestaa 13y agoWhy the downvote? Simple tools always work well. If you want process isolation on Linux, LXC + rsync might as well be the simplest route.
- jaytaylor 13y agoAnything not pro-docker usually gets downvoted by shykes and his ring of cronies.
- aegiso 13y agoThere's definitely hype behind Docker, but this is a ridiculous accusation.
- jaytaylor 13y agoPeople do crazy things for money.
- pekk 13y agoYou have rationalized away the people who disagree with you by making them into a conspiracy. I don't know about said ring of cronies, but I guarantee that many downvoters are not associated.
- jaytaylor 13y agoMy claim seems validated. Just look at both of my comments in this thread; they've both been downvoted deep into the negatives.
- kbutler 13y agoMy downvotes because the comments were disparaging and lacked proof. My only Docker affiliation is reading a bit about it lately. I had to search the page to see who shykes is.
- mritun 13y agoDocker is based on LXC containers. It bundles it's own management layer that replaces the "rsync" solution you propose.
- pekk 13y agoThe point of Docker is the standardized container/management interface. Of course you can write your own, but then it's not too standardized is it?
- jaytaylor 13y agoWhat you describe is standardizing complexity where a simple solution is available. Naturally, when feasible, I prefer keeping things simple and straightforward enough that standardization is unnecessary. Standardization for the sake of standardization is not defensible.
- darklajid 13y agoRegarding your first footnote: Is there an explanation why 'in production' is actively discouraged? Is that a limitation of the underlying lxc stuff? I ask, because the interesting parts of docker _for me_ seem to be focused on the setup, deployment - and not the runtime. So if I create a working image and want to use that in production, wouldn't docker become passive as soon as I run that thing? What's the danger here?
- pekk 13y agoI expect the danger is that someone will lose money and blame the developers for as-yet unforeseen issues which can only be smoked out after a few years of heavy use. But a specific danger would be interesting to hear.
- shykes 13y agoDocker maintainer here. That's basically it. There's no specific danger that we're worried about - just engineering best practices. As long as we're not comfortable operating Docker at large scale ourselves (we run quite a lot of containers in production at dotCloud), we won't recommend that others do it.