4 ms·

They let devs ssh onto production boxes and do what they want?!?! "Things diverge pretty quickly" - I'm sure they do. That sounds like a recipe for disaster...

They let devs ssh onto production boxes and do what they want?!?! "Things diverge pretty quickly" - I'm sure they do. That sounds like a recipe for disaster... Docker looks promising but until there's a way to allocate maximum resources to a container I wouldn't use it in production. VMs are much slower to start but at least a runaway process on one won't affect other VMs on the same hardware. Docker only lets you hint that only a certain number of cores should be used, so a bad process might monopolise the physical machine. Also until other tools (ansible, salt, chef, etc) help with provisioning you need to edit the dockerfile to change parameters (eg for settings that depend on your environment like smtp end points test vs prod, etc). If these points are addressed I think it'll be awesome though.

danielbln 13y ago
Docker lets you restrict memory and cpu consumption on a per-container basis. Configuration like endpoints are usually fed into the container via environment variables, not by changing stuff around in the Dockerfile. This way you can use the same container in multiple environments.
ldng 13y ago
Aren't cgroups be more then a hitting ? Or do you mean that by default does not setup strict enough cgroups ?
- ermintrude 13y ago
  It seems cpu.shares allow a proportional amount of CPU to be allocated, but LXC may use up to 100% of all idle CPUs. You can't specify a hard-limit of "only use 1GHz when I have a 2GHz CPU" apparently (according to here: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.containers.lxc.general/2475 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.containers.lxc....). So I guess that could mean that if the containers are using 100% of all CPUs, there wouldn't be resources left e.g. for monitoring on the host? Anyone got any experience with this?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
edwinnathaniel 13y ago
Take a look at packer.io
- ermintrude 13y ago
  Thanks. I had seen packer.io but then forgot about it. I had another look at Docker in November and had issues installing what I needed via apt for some reason. It wasn't a drop-in replacement for VMs for several reasons (I wanted an alternative backend to provision with salt), but when it hits 1.0 I'll have a look again, if not before.
  - edwinnathaniel 13y ago
    Definitely it is not. You'd have to prepare the docker instance a little bit differently than you would for VM. For example: Docker does not run upstart by default. re: issues with installing via apt => Docker public registry provided a stock Ubuntu 12.04 with a lot of things stripped out including the /etc/apt/sources.list (it contains only 1 entry). You'd have to populate that sources.list with a Ubuntu/Debian that you already have.
    - jamtur01 13y ago
      That's just by default though. You can easily run upstart (or other init styles) inside Docker. Additionally you can use a number of base images if the stock Ubuntu image doesn't suit you.
jamtur01 13y ago
It's fairly easy to integrate configuration management tools into your Docker workflow - I wrote a blog post about it here: http://kartar.net/2013/12/building-puppet-apps-inside-docker/ http://kartar.net/2013/12/building-puppet-apps-inside-docker....

danielbln 13y ago

Docker lets you restrict memory and cpu consumption on a per-container basis. Configuration like endpoints are usually fed into the container via environment variables, not by changing stuff around in the Dockerfile. This way you can use the same container in multiple environments.

ldng 13y ago

Aren't cgroups be more then a hitting ? Or do you mean that by default does not setup strict enough cgroups ?

ermintrude 13y ago
It seems cpu.shares allow a proportional amount of CPU to be allocated, but LXC may use up to 100% of all idle CPUs. You can't specify a hard-limit of "only use 1GHz when I have a 2GHz CPU" apparently (according to here: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.containers.lxc.general/2475 http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.containers.lxc....). So I guess that could mean that if the containers are using 100% of all CPUs, there wouldn't be resources left e.g. for monitoring on the host? Anyone got any experience with this?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

edwinnathaniel 13y ago

Take a look at packer.io

ermintrude 13y ago
Thanks. I had seen packer.io but then forgot about it. I had another look at Docker in November and had issues installing what I needed via apt for some reason. It wasn't a drop-in replacement for VMs for several reasons (I wanted an alternative backend to provision with salt), but when it hits 1.0 I'll have a look again, if not before.
- edwinnathaniel 13y ago
  Definitely it is not. You'd have to prepare the docker instance a little bit differently than you would for VM. For example: Docker does not run upstart by default. re: issues with installing via apt => Docker public registry provided a stock Ubuntu 12.04 with a lot of things stripped out including the /etc/apt/sources.list (it contains only 1 entry). You'd have to populate that sources.list with a Ubuntu/Debian that you already have.
  - jamtur01 13y ago
    That's just by default though. You can easily run upstart (or other init styles) inside Docker. Additionally you can use a number of base images if the stock Ubuntu image doesn't suit you.

jamtur01 13y ago

It's fairly easy to integrate configuration management tools into your Docker workflow - I wrote a blog post about it here: http://kartar.net/2013/12/building-puppet-apps-inside-docker/ http://kartar.net/2013/12/building-puppet-apps-inside-docker....