3 ms·
No, I was referring to LXC. Did you have look at the links to the LXC website and the container overview? There are plenty of 2 minute screencasts there that s
by tobbyb 11y ago
No, I was referring to LXC. Did you have look at the links to the LXC website and the container overview? There are plenty of 2 minute screencasts there that show LXC in action.
The LXC project does not refer to itself as low level, but ironically Docker which knows exactly what LXC is, does. And the results are these needless misconceptions, which is a tad unfair to the developers of the LXC project. Why would anyone try LXC if they think its 'low level'?
LXD extends LXC to add a REST api, multi-host container management and soon live migration.
LXC is a full fledged userland project and has been since 2009 when it began development. It is also responsible for driving the development of a lot of the kernel capabilities mainly 'cgroups' and 'namespaces' needed to support containers.
That's the 'low level' capabilities that LXC, Docker. Nspawn use to give you containers, but it would be as inaccurate to refer to Docker as 'low level' because it uses these, as it would LXC.
A container is simply a file system in a folder that gets booted and works on any underlying Linux filesystem so I am not sure about how conceptually a 'container format' fits there? That's one of the great things about containers. You do not need to think about storage. Simply zip the container folder and move across servers. Containers are completely portable across any Linux system today. But if you are going to use aufs or overlayfs layers to build single apps containers with constrained container OS templates then perhaps there is a need for a format.
- icebraining 11y agoWhen I said they referred to it as low-level, I wasn't just making shit up. From Stéphane Graber's (LXC lead) blog: "Instead, LXD is our opportunity to start fresh. We’re keeping LXC as the great low level container manager that it is. And build LXD on top of it, using LXC’s API to do all the low level work. That achieves the best of both worlds, we keep our low level container manager with its API and bindings but skip using its tools and templates, instead replacing those by the new experience that LXD provides." > A container is simply a file system in a folder that gets booted and works on any underlying Linux filesystem so I am not sure about how conceptually a 'container format' fits there? Well, then maybe you should read TFA? It's all about the creation of a standard 'container format'.
- tobbyb 11y agoHi, I think we are playing with words and context here so I will leave it here. The quote is in a context and says LXD uses LXCs low level api. It does not say 'LXC is a low level api'. How does one conclude that from the quote and take it out of context without misleading readers? Any one with a remote awareness of LXC will know that's erroneous. Do you still think your comment was accurate? Have you used LXC, are you familiar with LXC beyond the quote, are you interested in having an informed discussion on LXC and containers? There has be a basis for informed discussion.
- icebraining 11y agoI don't know how else I can read "We’re keeping LXC as the great low level container manager that it is" as anything other than LXC being a low-level tool. In any case, my point in the original post was more that LXC didn't define a container format, unlike other container tools that built upon it, like LXD: https://github.com/lxc/lxd/blob/master/specs/image-handling.md#image-format https://github.com/lxc/lxd/blob/master/specs/image-handling....