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

Docker 1.11: The first OCI-compliant runtime, built on containerd

blog.docker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 64 posts

Re: Docker 1.11: The first OCI-compliant runtime, built on containerd

#31

Post by endymi0n »

vacri wrote: post #25
tveita wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want something stable I'd stay away from containers and use well-tested technologies like VMs and configuration management. In my experience many of the tools in the container ecosystem are in the early adopter phase, promising a lot of convenience for some use cases, but too buggy and feature incomplete to really deliver yet. Not to mention the breaking changes and occasional migration to a new tool.

We were using docker up to about a year ago, and ripped it out for just this reason - we didn't have the time available to keep coding the workarounds. Great if you have the time, not so great if you don't.

We were too deep in already unfortunately, but 1.10 introduced a whole new barrage of bugs and regressions, wasting hours and days working around it. If they don't devote some time getting the basics right and getting the core stable, we need to really consider alternatives. I'm already scared what 1.11 will break.

Re: Docker 1.11: The first OCI-compliant runtime, built on containerd

#32

Post by tlrobinson »

ysh7 wrote: post #16
shykes wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: I work at Docker. Docker has become a de facto standard for executing programs in a portable sandbox (aka "container"). There were increasing demands for making it a "proper" standard, so last year we donated a spec and reference implementation for a universal intermediary format - a "PDF of containers" if you will, and partnered with the Linux Foundation to manage it. The majority of the industry followe…

Disclaimer didn't say you are the CEO. I hope this guy does this again here, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11379475

Solomon's comment and disclaimer seemed perfectly reasonable to me. Why does it matter if he's the CTO or random employee?

Re: Docker 1.11: The first OCI-compliant runtime, built on containerd

#33

Post by rodionos »

cpuguy83 wrote: post #11
sams99 wrote: post #8

This is a huge upgrade that is super welcome. Recently (on 1.9) we have seen quite a few cases where we had "zombie" containers, these are container that can no longer be started or stopped due to cgroup misconfiguration or something along those lines. The new architecture means that for weird cases like this all we need to do is kill off runc without forcing every container on the box to restart (by restarting the d…

Sounds likely to be https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/18180 If so, it's a bug with a particular (newer) version of AUFS that has been fixed in most distros.

We hit 18180 in all our images with Java applications. Workaround was to upgrade the kernel.

Re: Docker 1.11: The first OCI-compliant runtime, built on containerd

#34

Post by esseti »

> DNS round robin load balancing: It’s now possible to load balance between containers with Docker’s networking. If you give multiple containers the same alias, Docker’s service discovery will return the addresses of all of the containers for round-robin DNS.

wait wait wait. I'm kind of new into docker world. And so far i've been struggling in understanding how to replicate a container in order to scale. For example i want to run the same Django project 3 time as web1, web2, web3. If i do so now i've to expose 3 different ports, one for each. Plus, to make it working, I need to have a load balancing, thus i've to use HAProxy and do a load balancing to point to each of the container. Anytime I add a new machine (e.g., web4) i've to change the conf of HAProxy and restart it. This brings down the system for a moment. (is this the right approach btw?)

Going back to the cite paragraph. Now i can create many containers and dockers automatically does the routing for me? Am I right? or I misunderstood the meaning of the cited point?

I just need to create all of them with a --alias web ?

Re: Docker 1.11: The first OCI-compliant runtime, built on containerd

#35

Post by mhotchen »

falcolas wrote: post #10

You know, standardization is a great thing. But, fuck, another major release with huge changes... What ever happened to stable architectures with hardening burn in periods? What new bugs are going to creep in due to these huge changes? How is this going to break our work arounds for previous versions? It's a great time to be in operations, containers are a huge step forward, but how are we supposed to be confident in…

There's also these:

- https://runc.io/

- https://linuxcontainers.org/

And I'm not sure if they're the same thing, compatible, or what. I'm going to let someone else pick the winner for me. I'll come back to containers in like a year or so and see what the lowdown is.

Re: Docker 1.11: The first OCI-compliant runtime, built on containerd

#38

Post by m_mueller »

esseti wrote: post #34

> DNS round robin load balancing: It’s now possible to load balance between containers with Docker’s networking. If you give multiple containers the same alias, Docker’s service discovery will return the addresses of all of the containers for round-robin DNS. wait wait wait. I'm kind of new into docker world. And so far i've been struggling in understanding how to replicate a container in order to scale. For example…

> (is this the right approach btw?)

This is why I use hipache for load balancing / routing - it is the only solution I've found where you can change the routing or add new backends in a live system without any downtime. Here is the main problem though: Its load balancing isn't exactly smart, for example it won't keep the same client IP on the same replica, thus creating problems when a client writes something on one replica, then gets switched to another that didn't get the update yet.

I'd love a better solution for this btw. Is noone working on Hipache anymore? Other than this problem I find it very elegant.

Re: Docker 1.11: The first OCI-compliant runtime, built on containerd

#39

Post by tachion »

tveita wrote: post #17
falcolas wrote: post #10

You know, standardization is a great thing. But, fuck, another major release with huge changes... What ever happened to stable architectures with hardening burn in periods? What new bugs are going to creep in due to these huge changes? How is this going to break our work arounds for previous versions? It's a great time to be in operations, containers are a huge step forward, but how are we supposed to be confident in…

If you want something stable I'd stay away from containers and use well-tested technologies like VMs and configuration management. In my experience many of the tools in the container ecosystem are in the early adopter phase, promising a lot of convenience for some use cases, but too buggy and feature incomplete to really deliver yet. Not to mention the breaking changes and occasional migration to a new tool.

Or simply use containers technology that's been around for a decade and is battle tested and stable, like FreeBSD Jails - https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/jails.html

Linux is not the only OS around, and Docker is not the only container technology available, that's important thing to remember.

Re: Docker 1.11: The first OCI-compliant runtime, built on containerd

#40

Post by crdoconnor »

vacri wrote: post #25
tveita wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want something stable I'd stay away from containers and use well-tested technologies like VMs and configuration management. In my experience many of the tools in the container ecosystem are in the early adopter phase, promising a lot of convenience for some use cases, but too buggy and feature incomplete to really deliver yet. Not to mention the breaking changes and occasional migration to a new tool.

We were using docker up to about a year ago, and ripped it out for just this reason - we didn't have the time available to keep coding the workarounds. Great if you have the time, not so great if you don't.

Stuff like this is what makes me wary of any technology that's been hyped.
Post reply on HN