Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Announcing Docker ToolBox

blog.docker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 73 posts

Re: Announcing Docker ToolBox

#41

Post by huslage »

bradgessler wrote: post #18
elvis635 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Docker under OSX is a real pain to solve ASAP. I've set Docker on my Linux machine and it's working like a charm. Then I had to do the same for my coworkers running OSX, the vbox shared folders are definitely unusable. Now it's been few days that I'm trying to find the best way to have a two-way sync in order to sync back changes from docker to the OSX folder (eg. when you upload a file and it's saved in the /public…

There's https://github.com/codekitchen/dinghy if you want to mount the Mac host volumes inside boot2docker via NFS. We have a Vagrantfile that does this, but dinghy packages it all up nicely. At the end of the day though, Docker as a development environment is really bad on OS X until a VM vendor fixes file share performance. I really wish Docker would make it a priority to have decent Mac support.

VMware Fusion has fine performance on shared folders. I use it all the time with docker-machine.

Re: Announcing Docker ToolBox

#42

Post by nzoschke »

Great release!

I bought a new MacBook 2 days ago, and setting it up has never been easier.

Almost all of my development takes place in a Docker environment now, and the Docker ToolBox makes installing that a breeze.

Less XCode, Homebrew, rubygems, npm. More Docker.

Re: Announcing Docker ToolBox

#43

Post by vincentriemer »

FlyingSnake wrote: post #6

Sadly no support for Parallels.

The docker team completely ignored the great work the parallels team put into creating a parallels driver instead telling them to wait for the plugin architecture to be finished.

Reference: https://github.com/docker/machine/pull/939

Re: Announcing Docker ToolBox

#44

Post by codelitt »

davexunit wrote: post #39

Just use GNU/Linux already!

It's true. Docker Just Works™ on GNU/Linux. I'm a Linux guy myself for anything in development. However, unless I'm mistaken, part of the goal of Docker is to provide identical environments to an engineering team and production.

I always advocate for Linux use (in addition to principles, most things are easier as well), but everyone has their preferred environment.

Re: Announcing Docker ToolBox

#45

Post by frapposelli »

babs474 wrote: post #40
bradgessler wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and I think its much worse in terms of reliability. When I save a file (say a Gemfile), sometimes only half of it shows up inside the container. Anybody know what would cause VMWare Fusion (or any VM for that matter) to behave this way?

I run into this. Files are only partially synced. You end up with broken code. If you are lucky it has a syntax error. If you are not lucky you get mysterious bugs. The work around is to go back and try re-editing the file to retrigger a sync. There are lots recommendations to try Fusion over Vbox but I think this issue makes it a wash.

This is a known bug, we're addressing it with a new version of open-vm-tools, there's a thread going on over at github[1] to track this.

[1] https://github.com/docker/machine/issues/1460

Re: Announcing Docker ToolBox

#46

Post by haldean »

alcidesfonseca wrote: post #12
girvo wrote: post #3

Nice one. However, VirtualBox's shared-folder support is so god-awfully slow, that here at work we all swapped out the regular boot2docker setup for boot2docker-xhyve[0] which is so much faster at nearly everything that it's not even a comparison. Now, with ailispaw's dockeroot-xhyve you can even get a VM root image that can be grown on the fly, so you never run out of space on your VM when building large Docker imag…

Has anyone tried VMWare fusion to run a Docker host VM? Virtualbox shared folders are unusable for my purpose (compiling software on Linux).

Yes, most of us where I work do this. Fusion runs about 3x faster for our system, so using virtualbox would seriously impact development time; most of us use VMware shared folders and SSH into the VM, so it feels pretty seamless. I haven't had any of the problems that others are saying they have.

Re: Announcing Docker ToolBox

#47

Post by cmelbye »

nileshtrivedi wrote: post #33
Kudos wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should I have two separate docker images, one running the application and the other running MySQL, with them talking to each other across the host OS? Yes. > Or can they be configured in a single docker image? They can , but it's an anti-pattern and there are hurdles to overcome if you try managing processes using an init system.

People differ on this point. Discourse, for example, ships a single Docker container which runs the Rails-based webapp, a database server (PostgreSQL), and a key-value store (Redis). They have been using this same setup in production for quite a while now.

So how do they run multiple application servers to scale horizontally? Or a cluster of Redis servers?

Re: Announcing Docker ToolBox

#49

Post by kolev »

girvo wrote: post #3

Nice one. However, VirtualBox's shared-folder support is so god-awfully slow, that here at work we all swapped out the regular boot2docker setup for boot2docker-xhyve[0] which is so much faster at nearly everything that it's not even a comparison. Now, with ailispaw's dockeroot-xhyve you can even get a VM root image that can be grown on the fly, so you never run out of space on your VM when building large Docker imag…

It will be available in docker-machine v0.5.0 as a plugin.
Post reply on HN