5 ms·
It seems like the more interesting software fight is datacenter cloud o/s which is even higher level than Docker's orchestration-of-containers focus. I hadn't
by dantiberian 12y ago
It seems like the more interesting software fight is datacenter cloud o/s which is even higher level than Docker's orchestration-of-containers focus.
I hadn't thought about it, but this makes a lot of sense as the next place of competition where value can be added. It's also where CoreOS is trying to be. It would also suggest that the level above that is abstracting datacenter's away to just manage a single global system made up of multiple DC's.
There may be something I'm missing in the Docker vs CoreOS that makes me discount this competition while others are playing it up.
Docker and CoreOS aren't strictly competing with each other, CoreOS wanted to use Docker as a commodity component (as it was designed), Docker eventually realised that becoming a commodity businesses wasn't going to be very profitable and moved into CoreOS' territory.
- jacques_chester 12y ago> It would also suggest that the level above that is abstracting datacenter's away to just manage a single global system made up of multiple DC's. I work on Cloud Foundry. We already have this tool, at least for the IaaS layer. It's called BOSH[1], and it allows no-downtime deploys and updates of very large PaaSes (such as our own Pivotal Web Services). In our reference Cloud Foundry configuration, cf-release[2], we define a deployment manifest that can install a Cloud Foundry instance that spans two AWS availability zones. We dogfood this system every week. Sometimes twice per week. Our entire Pivotal Web Services system is updated, live, online. And basically, it's very rare that anyone notices. Which is awesome. [1] https://github.com/cloudfoundry/bosh https://github.com/cloudfoundry/bosh [2] https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release https://github.com/cloudfoundry/cf-release