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

Docker for Mac Beta Review

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 367 posts

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#81

Post by nzoschke »

wichsen wrote: post #66

Question: Is this compatible with OS X 10.9.x or earlier? Or is it only for the latest pieces of shit that are 10.10/10.11? edit thanks for the correction netheril96! I'm curious about the state of compatibility because I've drawn a line in the sand -- and refuse to upgrade from 10.9 (since many things seem to be getting only worse and less stable in MAC OS land :).

There's a genuine question in there that would be easier to get an answer without your judgements...

OS X Hypervisor Framework, which this uses via xhyve, is only available starting on OS X Yosemite v10.10.

https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/releasenotes/MacOSX/...

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#82

Post by zenlikethat »

Osiris wrote: post #6

I'm a node.js developer. I understand the benefit of using docker for deployments or CI testing, but I have yet to be convinced of the benefits of using it for development on my local machine. I install node, postgres, and redis natively and it all works fine. What benefits does docker provide to my workflow?

Do you put your applications in production yourself, or do you have an operations team which takes care of it for you?

If you develop everything using Docker, running the containers on another (Linux) computer is much easier as everything is already prepared and ready to bundle up and deploy.

If you develop on Linux and deploy to Linux, don't you feel you will catch kernel and other OS-specific issues much faster? i.e. Before they become a problem in production?

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#83

Post by kawera »

netheril96 wrote: post #67
wichsen wrote: post #66

Question: Is this compatible with OS X 10.9.x or earlier? Or is it only for the latest pieces of shit that are 10.10/10.11? edit thanks for the correction netheril96! I'm curious about the state of compatibility because I've drawn a line in the sand -- and refuse to upgrade from 10.9 (since many things seem to be getting only worse and less stable in MAC OS land :).

The latest piece is 10.11.

I'm running the latest (build: 6072) on 10.10.5.

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#84

Post by ddollar »

molecule wrote: post #68
djs55 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I work for Docker on Docker for Mac) Our approach is to focus on functionality and correctness first, and then improve performance over time. We're building up a suite of performance benchmarks to help us track progress-- are there particular benchmarks that you would recommend we add? I'll certainly add "CPU load while idling" to the list.

> Our approach is to focus on functionality and correctness first, and then improve performance over time. Just my two cents: I think that the interface and features are excellent and a joy to use, but performance was a show-stopper that forced me to quit using the Beta for Rails-application development: - a simple request that took ~1/3 of a second using VirtualBox and Docker Machine took six seconds on Docker for M…

I've noticed this as well. It seems like the docker.local hostname can sometimes take a long time to resolve. If I resolve that hostname and visit the IP directly it generally works great.

Definitely check out the beta forums as most of the issues I've found have already been reported with workarounds.

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#85

Post by zenlikethat »

dandandan wrote: post #48
garadox wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to run services in docker containers with Docker Toolbox (e.g. a mysql db), and you want the db stored on the Mac host, then you have to worry about 2 layers of folder mounts (one from host -> vm, one from vm -> container), another 2 layers of port forwarding (same as above), to make it 'feel' like your're running mysql locally. With the beta, all of that is taken care for you with a couple of settings, a…

That's still the case with docker for Mac. Swapping xhyve for virtualbox doesn't eliminate the port forwarding or device mounting.

Docker For Mac also does some other cool things, for instance exposed container ports are available at the address `docker.local`. Solutions to help deal with filesystem permission mis-matches, filesystem notifications, and VPN compatibility (all of which are things VirtualBox struggles with) are also being baked in.

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#86

Post by torpy »

wichsen wrote: post #66

Question: Is this compatible with OS X 10.9.x or earlier? Or is it only for the latest pieces of shit that are 10.10/10.11? edit thanks for the correction netheril96! I'm curious about the state of compatibility because I've drawn a line in the sand -- and refuse to upgrade from 10.9 (since many things seem to be getting only worse and less stable in MAC OS land :).

Hypervisor.framework (which xhyve depends on) was only added in 10.10, it's unlikely to work in anything less than that.

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#87

Post by voltagex_ »

tacos wrote: post #11
striking wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By contrast, I've never once had an issue with VirtualBox. Vagrant and VirtualBox are my best buddies.

I know who I'm inviting to Vegas next trip. Assuming you haven't used up all your luck. https://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/Changelog

For extra fun, use a Windows Insider Preview. VirtualBox was broken on every single update, I think until 5.0.17.

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#88

Post by zenlikethat »

smegel wrote: post #60
friism wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the case - there's only one virtual machine shared by all containers.

Oh...that's interesting. That would even be useful on Linux to enable greater resource separation between processes...say being able to lock all Docker processes down to 1-2 cores on a machine and with a hard memory limit they can't exceed.

What you mention is a major reason why Linux containers were invented, and is already possible with Docker today. Take a look at the '--mem-limit' or '--cpu-shares' flags for 'docker run', for instance.

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#89

Post by joombaga »

shuzchen wrote: post #13

Can anybody in HN provide a quickpath into the beta? I signed up when it was first announced (seems to be over 30 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11352389 ) but haven't heard anything back yet.

I signed up on the same day and just received my invite today.

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#90

Post by mwcampbell »

Sounds promising. But I'd like to see Docker work with Microsoft to produce something even better for Windows, using the new Windows Subsystem for Linux (WSL). With WSL, Docker and Microsoft should be able to bring Linux-based Docker containers to Windows, without the performance hit and resource fragmentation that inevitably come with virtualization. True, WSL doesn't support namespaces and cgroups, but IIUC, Windows itself has equivalent features. So the Docker daemon would run under Windows, and would use a native Windows API to create containers, each of which would use a separate WSL environment to run Linux binaries. I don't know how layered images would be supported; Microsoft might have to implement a union filesystem.
Post reply on HN