5 ms·
For security yes, however, for performance / resource requirements docker is going to beat libvirt/qemu.
by fleitz 12y ago
For security yes, however, for performance / resource requirements docker is going to beat libvirt/qemu.
- rwmj 12y agoOr for running anything other than Linux on the exact same kernel. Running Windows, for example, or older copies of Linux.
- edwintorok 12y agoI think of docker as a "nicer chroot", i.e. it might be nice for testing deployment of networked applications with lots of servers, where setting up a new VM for each one would be both slow and an overkill. Is running something inside docker worse than running the same application on the host from a security pov? If not then you can consider docker just as one way of deploying an application on the host, i.e. not something for shared hosting of independent/possibly malicious applications.
- rwmj 12y agoIn addition, we have repeatedly hit problems with our "mock" build system which uses a different kernel from what userland software is normally tested with. eg: [1] [2]. This stuff is going to hit Docker users sooner or later. It is also infuriatingly hard to debug. [1] http://bugzilla.redhat.com/1062533 http://bugzilla.redhat.com/1062533 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/563103#c8 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/563103#c8
- rdtsc 12y agoDoes it run Windows? Because libvirt/qemu does. A slow speed beats 0 speed usually? ;-)
- icebraining 12y agoA slow speed beats 0 speed usually? ;-) Not if you're running Windows.
- rdtsc 12y ago> Not if you're running Windows. Not if Windows puts money in the pocket