7 ms·

Microsoft, RedHat, IBM, Docker, Mesosphere, CoreOS and SaltStack join Kubernetes

160 points by bgoldy 12y ago

djb_hackernews 12y ago
crickets from VMWare/EMC. Docker/containers will eat their lunch if they don't jump in and get involved.
- Karunamon 12y ago
  I think that's the way the landscape is changing.. light weight and easily-managed containers rather than virtualizing entire systems. It's just one level of abstraction up. First the hardware was abstracted, and now the OS is abstracted. Once we can reliably and seamlessly shift applications (not VMs) around generic pools of compute resources, to coin a phrase, you're going to see some serious shit! Interesting times we live in.
  - parley 12y ago
    It may very well go that way, but I think unikernels (like MirageOS (http://http://www.openmirage.org/ http://http://www.openmirage.org/) are very interesting as well. A paravirtualized unikernel should be able to carry less overhead than regular virtualized OSs and be able to operate completely in ring0/kernelspace. Pair that with all the hw acceleration for virtualization available these days and you may get some pretty lean and fast virtualization that also more easily support hybrid deployments (Container software needs to be built for specific container host OSs and libs(depending on how much is bundled in each container)). Also, the security implications of containers vs (para)-virtualization are different, so I think my personal jury's still out on that one too. But I do agree that these are interesting times, for sure. And containers may win, I just don't think it's a done deal just yet. :)
  - binarycrusader 12y ago
    This is not a swipe at Docker; it's an interesting technology if you're running Linux and I'm sure it will be very valuable to many. However, let's not forget that Solaris had this functionality first. Solaris has offered hypervisor-level virtualization (LDOMS) on SPARC, light-weight "virtualization" (Containers/Zones) on SPARC/x86, and now offers full system virtualization out of the box (Kernel Zones) SPARC/x86. And there's also OpenStack and Puppet system management integration in Solaris 11.2+.
    - evol262 12y ago
      Not really. Even in an absolute sense, linux-vserver is/was contemporary with zones. Yes, in the sense that partitioning technology isn't new. zones and jails are comparable to vserver/openvz/lxc. vpars, lpars, and ldoms have analogues on mainframes. Various hypervisor technologies (xen, kvm, vmkernel) are also not unique to solaris, and were done on Linux. What Docker offers that none of these do not is that it's containerization for applications without the "weight" of even zones. It's not virtualizing systems. It's starting one application in its own container. That's it. I don't know who's spreading this "Docker is just like zones" FUD, but it's wrong. Linux has had container-level virtualization for a decade, and LXC has had mainline support for a while. Docker builds on that, but it's different. At the same time, EMC is not shitting themselves over docker. Application containers will not replace traditional or container virtualization for all workloads. But they will for some.
      - benjarrell 12y ago
        Having never used Docker, if it is containerization for applications, how is it different from Application WPARs or App-V?
        evol262 12y ago
        It's analogous to App-V or an Application LPAR, if such a thing existed, but these are both good examples. My complaint to the previous poster is mostly that it differs in the same way that an Application WPAR differs from a WPAR. Yes, they're the same base. No, they're not the same thing.
      - binarycrusader 12y ago
        Sorry, but I'm going to disagree. linux-vserver is not contemporary with zones. If you think that it is, you haven't looked at Solaris zones technology very carefully. linux-vserver requires the kernel to be patched; Solaris zones does not. linux-vserver has no clustering or process migration capability; Solaris zones in combination with LDOMs gives you a path for live migration. linux-vserver networking is based on isolation, not virtualization. This means each virtual server can't create its own internal routing or firewall setup -- Solaris zones can. linux-vserver doesn't fully virtualize the system; clock, parts of /proc and /sys are not virtualized. So no, linux-vservers are not equivalents. Yes, docker offers containerization -- but not sufficient containerization. Certainly not sufficient for security purposes as have come up repeatedly in recent history. As for the "weight" of zones; I don't know what "weight" you're talking about. Solaris zones have almost no overhead at all. They use some disk space, but we're talking less than 300MB if I recall correctly at most in a default configuration. And Solaris Zones give you several advantages that Docker doesn't provide. Regardless, I'm certain that for some specific use cases, Docker will prove an appropriate technology.
  - rdtsc 12y ago
    > light weight and easily-managed containers rather than virtualizing entire systems. Not if lighweight easily-manage containers can run Windows. Not just windows but any non-matching-with-host-kernel OS-es so nobody is eating VMWare's lunch yet.
    - hhsnopek 12y ago
      I think after the baby boomers have left the picture in business, windows will slowly die out. Developers today are using OSX and Linux. Don't quote me, but traditional schools are the only ones using windows. My college does, and I honestly think its a learning point for all developers to know Linux over windows because of usage around the world. Tech companies are dropping windows for the opposing systems because of speed, reliability, and the current trend in design. With this happening all development, or at least what I'm seeing in the web, is mainly done on OSX or Linux. Therefore it make sense that lightweight containers will eventually eat VMWares lunch.
      - emmelaich 12y ago
        Speaking of OSX, what is there equivalent? I've used Solaris Zones and LXC containers, but the closest thing on OSX is sandbox. But that's not very close as far as I can tell.
        lucian1900 12y ago
        OS X has no containerisation equivalent. The closest thing is the venerable chroot, but the behaviour is not comparable. Perhaps a Docker chroot backend could be built though, for easier development on OS X.
        turnip1979 12y ago
        I was just thinking what a pain it is to have to use VMs/ssh in order to get access to containers from my Mac OS machine. It made be (semi-seriously) consider getting a Linux machine as my next laptop. I'm still a bit skeptical but it is a start to think about it.
- wmf 12y ago
  If KVM didn't eat their lunch already, why would Docker be different?
  - tux1968 12y ago
    Because it's a new paradigm, not just a competing virtual-machine implementation.
    - evol262 12y ago
      It's not a paradigm which even remotely threatens VMware's use case, though.
  - jfoutz 12y ago
    lxc is lighter weight. just like 5% page size saves millions in bandwidth. 5% cpu overhead saves in electricity and hardware costs. Assuming all other things being equal (I know they aren't - but security, tooling, and management can be improved) vmware has inherent overhead of the hypervisor that's not an issue with lxc.
  - e12e 12y ago
    Marketing, maturity, support and tooling? I think the only ones that really ran with KVM were/are Joyent with their Smart OS - combining (some of the) tooling/tech that makes Solaris Zones great with a Free and Open operating system, freedom from Sun/Oracle and support for many guest platforms (and/or low overhead "native" zones). I think the only real downside of Smart OS is the same as with Open Solaris (or pretty much any other "it isn't Linux"-unix-like OS'): drivers and hw support. The great thing with Linux as a host, is that (edge cases excepted) you can literally run in on your entire infrastructure (right now, or in the near probable future) -- from phones and tablets via desktops and laptops through servers, clusters and pretty much anything beyond. I'm sure we'll see some backlashes from the new monoculture, but I think overall it's a bright future. And we can have our occasional parties arguing for why everyone should really use (Dragonfly|Free|Open)BSD/(Open)Solaris/Plan9 because it has X, does Y better and has more consistent and better documentation.
  - Intermernet 12y ago
- president 12y ago
  tell me again how Docker/containers can run Windows, which much of enterprise IT is still virtualizing
sidcool 12y ago
It's great so see tech giants going along well for technical growth.
ifup 12y ago
The cool thing that is that we have a number of companies contributing significant technologies to the open source ecosystem that build a stack of software that gets us closer to running distributed systems in a reasonable reproducible manner: - Google is bringing kubernetes (k8s) which represents their experience in deploying cluster wide applications - CoreOS is bringing etcd to the table for the cluster wide decisions in k8s - Docker is bringing a format that makes getting your applications isolated and running quickly
- presspot 12y ago
  - Mesosphere is bringing Kubernetes on Mesos, which will give you a top-to-bottom stack that approximates Google's Omega/Borg at scale. http://mesosphere.io/2014/07/10/mesosphere-announces-kubernetes-on-mesos/ http://mesosphere.io/2014/07/10/mesosphere-announces-kuberne...
miles932 12y ago
Am I the only one to notice that if you subtract the k-es from the name, kubernetes becomes UBERNET.
ihsw 12y ago
These are massive names using Go now. This is an exciting time for Gophers.
- thescrewdriver 12y ago
  I'm curious how a vague cheerleading-your-favourite-technology comment became the most upvoted in this discussion.
  - gulbrandr 12y ago
    I think "This is an exciting time for Gophers." is the reason.
    - stephenr 12y ago
      Gophers? Thats what developers who use the Go language call themselves? What's with the ridiculously bad naming/branding in the tech world? * Gophers (the animal) are considered by many to be a pest. * The Docker logo is a whale carrying shipping containers on its back. Shipping containers that go into the ocean are basically unrecoverable/not worth recovering, and whales spend very little of their time on the surface (meaning all the containers will go into the ocean) This is as ridiculous as having an airline named after an animal that cannot fly and kills people.
      - jahewson 12y ago
        That would be Tiger Airways https://tigerair.com https://tigerair.com
jwildeboer 12y ago
Interesting. No Canonical/Ubuntu.
- tormeh 12y ago
  They're Python-fans, I believe. EDIT: This used to be their recommended way of making apps: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/08/quickly-new-rails-like-rapid-development-tools-for-ubuntu/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/08/quickl...
  - thejosh 12y ago
    They use go to build juju.
- waitingkuo 12y ago
  And no Amazon as well!
donniezazen 12y ago
Google's open source investment hugely astonishes me but as far as desktop is concerned they are also hugely oblivious and ignorant (Yes, I am talking about Drive for Linux).
contingencies 12y ago
TLDR; Kubernetes is basically like a local copy of a specific-configuration cloud provider that uses docker. It's also Google Cloud Platform's basis, so developing against it lets you deploy your code there. As far as software goes, it's very immature/early days. Some of the pertinent architectural limitations that Kubernetes appears to have are: limited range of target OS platforms for services to target, non-standard mechanism of service relationship abstraction (read: lock-in warning), immature security model, limited support for complex network topologies (eg. hardware switch management), fixed approach to cluster scheduling/consensus. PS. Corrections welcome, I'm just trying to help people get a grasp without bothering with the background reading.

160 points by bgoldy 12y ago

djb_hackernews 12y ago

crickets from VMWare/EMC. Docker/containers will eat their lunch if they don't jump in and get involved.

Karunamon 12y ago
I think that's the way the landscape is changing.. light weight and easily-managed containers rather than virtualizing entire systems. It's just one level of abstraction up. First the hardware was abstracted, and now the OS is abstracted. Once we can reliably and seamlessly shift applications (not VMs) around generic pools of compute resources, to coin a phrase, you're going to see some serious shit! Interesting times we live in.
- parley 12y ago
  It may very well go that way, but I think unikernels (like MirageOS (http://http://www.openmirage.org/ http://http://www.openmirage.org/) are very interesting as well. A paravirtualized unikernel should be able to carry less overhead than regular virtualized OSs and be able to operate completely in ring0/kernelspace. Pair that with all the hw acceleration for virtualization available these days and you may get some pretty lean and fast virtualization that also more easily support hybrid deployments (Container software needs to be built for specific container host OSs and libs(depending on how much is bundled in each container)). Also, the security implications of containers vs (para)-virtualization are different, so I think my personal jury's still out on that one too. But I do agree that these are interesting times, for sure. And containers may win, I just don't think it's a done deal just yet. :)
- binarycrusader 12y ago
  This is not a swipe at Docker; it's an interesting technology if you're running Linux and I'm sure it will be very valuable to many. However, let's not forget that Solaris had this functionality first. Solaris has offered hypervisor-level virtualization (LDOMS) on SPARC, light-weight "virtualization" (Containers/Zones) on SPARC/x86, and now offers full system virtualization out of the box (Kernel Zones) SPARC/x86. And there's also OpenStack and Puppet system management integration in Solaris 11.2+.
  - evol262 12y ago
    Not really. Even in an absolute sense, linux-vserver is/was contemporary with zones. Yes, in the sense that partitioning technology isn't new. zones and jails are comparable to vserver/openvz/lxc. vpars, lpars, and ldoms have analogues on mainframes. Various hypervisor technologies (xen, kvm, vmkernel) are also not unique to solaris, and were done on Linux. What Docker offers that none of these do not is that it's containerization for applications without the "weight" of even zones. It's not virtualizing systems. It's starting one application in its own container. That's it. I don't know who's spreading this "Docker is just like zones" FUD, but it's wrong. Linux has had container-level virtualization for a decade, and LXC has had mainline support for a while. Docker builds on that, but it's different. At the same time, EMC is not shitting themselves over docker. Application containers will not replace traditional or container virtualization for all workloads. But they will for some.
    - benjarrell 12y ago
      Having never used Docker, if it is containerization for applications, how is it different from Application WPARs or App-V?
      - evol262 12y ago
        It's analogous to App-V or an Application LPAR, if such a thing existed, but these are both good examples. My complaint to the previous poster is mostly that it differs in the same way that an Application WPAR differs from a WPAR. Yes, they're the same base. No, they're not the same thing.
    - binarycrusader 12y ago
      Sorry, but I'm going to disagree. linux-vserver is not contemporary with zones. If you think that it is, you haven't looked at Solaris zones technology very carefully. linux-vserver requires the kernel to be patched; Solaris zones does not. linux-vserver has no clustering or process migration capability; Solaris zones in combination with LDOMs gives you a path for live migration. linux-vserver networking is based on isolation, not virtualization. This means each virtual server can't create its own internal routing or firewall setup -- Solaris zones can. linux-vserver doesn't fully virtualize the system; clock, parts of /proc and /sys are not virtualized. So no, linux-vservers are not equivalents. Yes, docker offers containerization -- but not sufficient containerization. Certainly not sufficient for security purposes as have come up repeatedly in recent history. As for the "weight" of zones; I don't know what "weight" you're talking about. Solaris zones have almost no overhead at all. They use some disk space, but we're talking less than 300MB if I recall correctly at most in a default configuration. And Solaris Zones give you several advantages that Docker doesn't provide. Regardless, I'm certain that for some specific use cases, Docker will prove an appropriate technology.
- rdtsc 12y ago
  > light weight and easily-managed containers rather than virtualizing entire systems. Not if lighweight easily-manage containers can run Windows. Not just windows but any non-matching-with-host-kernel OS-es so nobody is eating VMWare's lunch yet.
  - hhsnopek 12y ago
    I think after the baby boomers have left the picture in business, windows will slowly die out. Developers today are using OSX and Linux. Don't quote me, but traditional schools are the only ones using windows. My college does, and I honestly think its a learning point for all developers to know Linux over windows because of usage around the world. Tech companies are dropping windows for the opposing systems because of speed, reliability, and the current trend in design. With this happening all development, or at least what I'm seeing in the web, is mainly done on OSX or Linux. Therefore it make sense that lightweight containers will eventually eat VMWares lunch.
    - emmelaich 12y ago
      Speaking of OSX, what is there equivalent? I've used Solaris Zones and LXC containers, but the closest thing on OSX is sandbox. But that's not very close as far as I can tell.
      - lucian1900 12y ago
        OS X has no containerisation equivalent. The closest thing is the venerable chroot, but the behaviour is not comparable. Perhaps a Docker chroot backend could be built though, for easier development on OS X.
        turnip1979 12y ago
        I was just thinking what a pain it is to have to use VMs/ssh in order to get access to containers from my Mac OS machine. It made be (semi-seriously) consider getting a Linux machine as my next laptop. I'm still a bit skeptical but it is a start to think about it.
wmf 12y ago
If KVM didn't eat their lunch already, why would Docker be different?
- tux1968 12y ago
  Because it's a new paradigm, not just a competing virtual-machine implementation.
  - evol262 12y ago
    It's not a paradigm which even remotely threatens VMware's use case, though.
- jfoutz 12y ago
  lxc is lighter weight. just like 5% page size saves millions in bandwidth. 5% cpu overhead saves in electricity and hardware costs. Assuming all other things being equal (I know they aren't - but security, tooling, and management can be improved) vmware has inherent overhead of the hypervisor that's not an issue with lxc.
- e12e 12y ago
  Marketing, maturity, support and tooling? I think the only ones that really ran with KVM were/are Joyent with their Smart OS - combining (some of the) tooling/tech that makes Solaris Zones great with a Free and Open operating system, freedom from Sun/Oracle and support for many guest platforms (and/or low overhead "native" zones). I think the only real downside of Smart OS is the same as with Open Solaris (or pretty much any other "it isn't Linux"-unix-like OS'): drivers and hw support. The great thing with Linux as a host, is that (edge cases excepted) you can literally run in on your entire infrastructure (right now, or in the near probable future) -- from phones and tablets via desktops and laptops through servers, clusters and pretty much anything beyond. I'm sure we'll see some backlashes from the new monoculture, but I think overall it's a bright future. And we can have our occasional parties arguing for why everyone should really use (Dragonfly|Free|Open)BSD/(Open)Solaris/Plan9 because it has X, does Y better and has more consistent and better documentation.
- Intermernet 12y ago
president 12y ago
tell me again how Docker/containers can run Windows, which much of enterprise IT is still virtualizing

sidcool 12y ago

It's great so see tech giants going along well for technical growth.

ifup 12y ago

The cool thing that is that we have a number of companies contributing significant technologies to the open source ecosystem that build a stack of software that gets us closer to running distributed systems in a reasonable reproducible manner: - Google is bringing kubernetes (k8s) which represents their experience in deploying cluster wide applications - CoreOS is bringing etcd to the table for the cluster wide decisions in k8s - Docker is bringing a format that makes getting your applications isolated and running quickly

presspot 12y ago
- Mesosphere is bringing Kubernetes on Mesos, which will give you a top-to-bottom stack that approximates Google's Omega/Borg at scale. http://mesosphere.io/2014/07/10/mesosphere-announces-kubernetes-on-mesos/ http://mesosphere.io/2014/07/10/mesosphere-announces-kuberne...

miles932 12y ago

Am I the only one to notice that if you subtract the k-es from the name, kubernetes becomes UBERNET.

ihsw 12y ago

These are massive names using Go now. This is an exciting time for Gophers.

thescrewdriver 12y ago
I'm curious how a vague cheerleading-your-favourite-technology comment became the most upvoted in this discussion.
- gulbrandr 12y ago
  I think "This is an exciting time for Gophers." is the reason.
  - stephenr 12y ago
    Gophers? Thats what developers who use the Go language call themselves? What's with the ridiculously bad naming/branding in the tech world? * Gophers (the animal) are considered by many to be a pest. * The Docker logo is a whale carrying shipping containers on its back. Shipping containers that go into the ocean are basically unrecoverable/not worth recovering, and whales spend very little of their time on the surface (meaning all the containers will go into the ocean) This is as ridiculous as having an airline named after an animal that cannot fly and kills people.
    - jahewson 12y ago
      That would be Tiger Airways https://tigerair.com https://tigerair.com

jwildeboer 12y ago

Interesting. No Canonical/Ubuntu.

tormeh 12y ago
They're Python-fans, I believe. EDIT: This used to be their recommended way of making apps: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/08/quickly-new-rails-like-rapid-development-tools-for-ubuntu/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2009/08/quickl...
- thejosh 12y ago
  They use go to build juju.
waitingkuo 12y ago
And no Amazon as well!

donniezazen 12y ago

Google's open source investment hugely astonishes me but as far as desktop is concerned they are also hugely oblivious and ignorant (Yes, I am talking about Drive for Linux).

contingencies 12y ago

TLDR; Kubernetes is basically like a local copy of a specific-configuration cloud provider that uses docker. It's also Google Cloud Platform's basis, so developing against it lets you deploy your code there. As far as software goes, it's very immature/early days. Some of the pertinent architectural limitations that Kubernetes appears to have are: limited range of target OS platforms for services to target, non-standard mechanism of service relationship abstraction (read: lock-in warning), immature security model, limited support for complex network topologies (eg. hardware switch management), fixed approach to cluster scheduling/consensus. PS. Corrections welcome, I'm just trying to help people get a grasp without bothering with the background reading.