4 ms·

So Azure, GCE, and now EC2 all support docker natively. Sorry Canonical and LXD, but docker has basically won at this point. There simply isn't a good reason to

by SEJeff 12y ago

So Azure, GCE, and now EC2 all support docker natively. Sorry Canonical and LXD, but docker has basically won at this point. There simply isn't a good reason to "compete" when you can just add features to docker at this point.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- pliu 12y ago
  Docker is built on LXC, Linux containers. LXD is a new thing from Canonical, a hypervisor designed especially for containers that is supposed to guarantee hardware isolation.
  - waffle_ss 12y ago
    > Docker is built on LXC, Linux containers Nope, it currently defaults to libcontainer[1], not LXC, but through the use of execution drivers[2] you can still use LXC if you want to. [1]: https://github.com/docker/libcontainer https://github.com/docker/libcontainer [2]: http://blog.docker.com/2014/03/docker-0-9-introducing-execution-drivers-and-libcontainer/ http://blog.docker.com/2014/03/docker-0-9-introducing-execut...
  - general_failure 12y ago
    Lxc is user land tooling
- SEJeff 12y ago
  Incorrect, docker is built ontop of Linux kernel namespaces and cgroups. The first backend was LXC (notice the C and not D). The current backend is libcontainer, which is a native golang re-implementation (more or less) of LXC. There is a docker backend for LXC, but it is not the default and is likely not used super heavily. Note that there isn't really a Linux kernel feature called LXC. The LXC userspace just ties all of the namespacing and cgroup functionality into 1 coherent super-chroot style environment. That is the same as docker does with libcontainer. http://www.infoq.com/news/2014/03/docker_0_9 http://www.infoq.com/news/2014/03/docker_0_9
  - rsync 12y ago
    Is there a point-by-point (and detailed) comparison somewhere between FreeBSD jail and LXC (or libcontainer) ... it would be very helpful to see that comparison.
    - gecko 12y ago
      I just asked that on Twitter, because I also am not getting it. It seems to me that ZFS and Jails provide identical functionality, but without Docker's networking headache. That said, even if my simplistic synopsis is correct, brining a Jails-like experience to Linux would still be a really solid step forward. Besides which, Jails have been underutilized at shops I've worked at. If Docker popularized the concept, that's still a huge win.
    - SEJeff 12y ago
      This is actually a pretty reasonable comparison. It is somewhat obvious the guy knows more about BSD Jails and elaborates a bit more on it, but overall, this is pretty accurate: http://unix.stackexchange.com/a/141595 http://unix.stackexchange.com/a/141595
- St-Clock 12y ago
  The OP was referring to Linux Container Daemon LXD [1] which is built on top of LXC and promises to offer Docker-like features. [1] http://www.ubuntu.com/cloud/tools/lxd http://www.ubuntu.com/cloud/tools/lxd
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- cthalupa 12y ago
  Well, LXD doesn't actually exist yet, so Docker couldn't possibly be built on it. You are likely confusing LXD with the present day LXC, which is understandable. You thinking that Docker is built on LXC is also understandable - but also not quite right. Docker used LXC as the default container implementation for much of it's lifespan. However, it has since dropped LXC as the default and uses libcontainer instead. The linux kernel does not actually specifically have a container implementation. Userland tools such as LXC ( https://linuxcontainers.org/ https://linuxcontainers.org/ ) and libcontainer ( https://github.com/docker/libcontainer https://github.com/docker/libcontainer ) utilize things like kernel namespaces, cgroups, and a variety of other features to deliver the container experience.
- shykes 12y ago
  No, Docker is not build on lxd. It used to be built on lxC, which is now an optional backend. The grand-parent is correct that lxd is a newly introduced competitor to Docker. I won't comment on whether it's good or bad, but it's an objective fact that canonical decided to reimplement what Docker does rather than contribute to it.
  - SEJeff 12y ago
    Don't worry Solomon, we still love Docker and will continue to use it :) That being said, if they do somehow manage to get hardware assisted containment for containers, I see it as a no-brainer for docker to adopt it as soon as it is reasonably possible. Are there any plans (that you can speak of) regarding something like this, or are you waiting for LXD to be more than vaporware at this point?
    - shykes 12y ago
      I can say that there are employees of major silicon companies already working on contributing all of this to upstream Docker. I was shown a real proof of concept already, it's very promising and not at all vaporware :)
      - SEJeff 12y ago
        Perhaps once the pax guys (spender in specific) will stop trolling docker and containers in general for once! We can hope.
  - 23david 12y ago
    I'm confused... Docker Inc CEO Ben Golub: Current meme gets it wrong. Ubuntu lxd is complementary, not @docker replacement. Joyent brings Docker to SmartOS. http://zd.net/1uB3Aly https://twitter.com/golubbe/status/530475539262623744 https://twitter.com/golubbe/status/530475539262623744
  - 23david 12y ago
    > it's an objective fact that canonical decided to reimplement > what Docker does rather than contribute to it. What was the reason that Docker reimplemented much of LXC rather than contribute patches upstream? Latest LXC supports features that Docker's reimplementation doesn't, and it seems likely to get further ahead feature-wise now that Ubuntu is pouring more resources into LXC/LXD.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

by SEJeff 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

pliu 12y ago
Docker is built on LXC, Linux containers. LXD is a new thing from Canonical, a hypervisor designed especially for containers that is supposed to guarantee hardware isolation.
- waffle_ss 12y ago
  > Docker is built on LXC, Linux containers Nope, it currently defaults to libcontainer[1], not LXC, but through the use of execution drivers[2] you can still use LXC if you want to. [1]: https://github.com/docker/libcontainer https://github.com/docker/libcontainer [2]: http://blog.docker.com/2014/03/docker-0-9-introducing-execution-drivers-and-libcontainer/ http://blog.docker.com/2014/03/docker-0-9-introducing-execut...
- general_failure 12y ago
  Lxc is user land tooling
SEJeff 12y ago
Incorrect, docker is built ontop of Linux kernel namespaces and cgroups. The first backend was LXC (notice the C and not D). The current backend is libcontainer, which is a native golang re-implementation (more or less) of LXC. There is a docker backend for LXC, but it is not the default and is likely not used super heavily. Note that there isn't really a Linux kernel feature called LXC. The LXC userspace just ties all of the namespacing and cgroup functionality into 1 coherent super-chroot style environment. That is the same as docker does with libcontainer. http://www.infoq.com/news/2014/03/docker_0_9 http://www.infoq.com/news/2014/03/docker_0_9
- rsync 12y ago
  Is there a point-by-point (and detailed) comparison somewhere between FreeBSD jail and LXC (or libcontainer) ... it would be very helpful to see that comparison.
  - gecko 12y ago
    I just asked that on Twitter, because I also am not getting it. It seems to me that ZFS and Jails provide identical functionality, but without Docker's networking headache. That said, even if my simplistic synopsis is correct, brining a Jails-like experience to Linux would still be a really solid step forward. Besides which, Jails have been underutilized at shops I've worked at. If Docker popularized the concept, that's still a huge win.
  - SEJeff 12y ago
    This is actually a pretty reasonable comparison. It is somewhat obvious the guy knows more about BSD Jails and elaborates a bit more on it, but overall, this is pretty accurate: http://unix.stackexchange.com/a/141595 http://unix.stackexchange.com/a/141595
St-Clock 12y ago
The OP was referring to Linux Container Daemon LXD [1] which is built on top of LXC and promises to offer Docker-like features. [1] http://www.ubuntu.com/cloud/tools/lxd http://www.ubuntu.com/cloud/tools/lxd
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
cthalupa 12y ago
Well, LXD doesn't actually exist yet, so Docker couldn't possibly be built on it. You are likely confusing LXD with the present day LXC, which is understandable. You thinking that Docker is built on LXC is also understandable - but also not quite right. Docker used LXC as the default container implementation for much of it's lifespan. However, it has since dropped LXC as the default and uses libcontainer instead. The linux kernel does not actually specifically have a container implementation. Userland tools such as LXC ( https://linuxcontainers.org/ https://linuxcontainers.org/ ) and libcontainer ( https://github.com/docker/libcontainer https://github.com/docker/libcontainer ) utilize things like kernel namespaces, cgroups, and a variety of other features to deliver the container experience.
shykes 12y ago
No, Docker is not build on lxd. It used to be built on lxC, which is now an optional backend. The grand-parent is correct that lxd is a newly introduced competitor to Docker. I won't comment on whether it's good or bad, but it's an objective fact that canonical decided to reimplement what Docker does rather than contribute to it.
- SEJeff 12y ago
  Don't worry Solomon, we still love Docker and will continue to use it :) That being said, if they do somehow manage to get hardware assisted containment for containers, I see it as a no-brainer for docker to adopt it as soon as it is reasonably possible. Are there any plans (that you can speak of) regarding something like this, or are you waiting for LXD to be more than vaporware at this point?
  - shykes 12y ago
    I can say that there are employees of major silicon companies already working on contributing all of this to upstream Docker. I was shown a real proof of concept already, it's very promising and not at all vaporware :)
    - SEJeff 12y ago
      Perhaps once the pax guys (spender in specific) will stop trolling docker and containers in general for once! We can hope.
- 23david 12y ago
  I'm confused... Docker Inc CEO Ben Golub: Current meme gets it wrong. Ubuntu lxd is complementary, not @docker replacement. Joyent brings Docker to SmartOS. http://zd.net/1uB3Aly https://twitter.com/golubbe/status/530475539262623744 https://twitter.com/golubbe/status/530475539262623744
- 23david 12y ago
  > it's an objective fact that canonical decided to reimplement > what Docker does rather than contribute to it. What was the reason that Docker reimplemented much of LXC rather than contribute patches upstream? Latest LXC supports features that Docker's reimplementation doesn't, and it seems likely to get further ahead feature-wise now that Ubuntu is pouring more resources into LXC/LXD.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]