4 ms·
You 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
by jaytaylor 13y ago
You 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.