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

Docker for Mac and Windows Is Now Generally Available and Ready for Production

blog.docker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 169 posts

Re: Docker for Mac and Windows Is Now Generally Available and Ready for Production

#31

Post by Todd »

I just installed D4W a few days ago for the first time. It's been great. It's a seamless experience on W10 Pro with Hyper-V. I've used VirtualBox a lot and I like it but I always have to fuss with the network bridge and such. With this, it's hard to tell I'm even using a VM. Their network port mapping is seamless.

FYI, I was using rc4 and I didn't see any information on how to upgrade (should I uninstall first?). I ran the release setup and it did an in-place upgrade, deleting earlier components and such.

Re: Docker for Mac and Windows Is Now Generally Available and Ready for Production

#32

Post by slantedview »

mintplant wrote: post #20
slantedview wrote: post #6

I need nested virtualization as well. I don't know if this is possible with the hypervisor being used, but it's hugely important for me.

Curious, can you share what you need it for?

Basically for hacking on cloud software that runs hypervisors such as kvm. docker-machine with a VMWare Fusion VM and nested virtualization enabled is the current approach I use - works fine for now.

Re: Docker for Mac and Windows Is Now Generally Available and Ready for Production

#34

Post by divideby0 »

colordrops wrote: post #26
jonesetc wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have also yet to see a reasonable solution for connecting out of a container back to the host with Docker.app. On linux and OSX with docker-machine this is easy with: docker run --add-host host:ip.for.docker.interface foo But there is no equivalent to the docker0 interface or the vboxnet interface for Docker.app. EDIT: I don't use this for any production environments, but it is very useful for debugging and testing…

What about getting the gateway address from inside the container: HOST_IP=$(/sbin/ip route | awk '/default/ { print $3 }')

That works for some use cases, but for others (Elasticsearch, Zookeeper, Kafka, etc) the service inside the container needs to bind to an interface associated with an IP that's also addressable by the host. Even in host networking mode, eth0 inside a DFM-powered container will bound something like 192.168.x.y but that 192.168.x.0 subnet is completely inaccessible from the host.

Re: Docker for Mac and Windows Is Now Generally Available and Ready for Production

#35

Post by HelloImDumb »

mrmondo wrote: post #21
jmspring wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, the state of things, be it the Docker ecosystem or others, "ready for production" means something much different than it did years ago. For me, the definition of ready for production, Debian is a good example of the opposite end of Docker.

I'm not completely disagreeing with you but Debian in recent years has taken massive steps backwards as far as production stability. Jessie for example did not ship with SELinux enabled which was a key deliverable for Jessie to be classed as stable / ready for production, what's worse is it doesn't ship with the require SELinux policies - again another requirement before it was to be marked as stable, it's filled wit…

You've given one example; SELinux. Did wheezy ship with SELinux enabled? No. So how is that a step backwards? It would have been a step backwards if they shipped with it enabled and it was half-assed. SELinux is notoriously hard to get right across the board. See how many Fedora solutions start with "turn off SELinux." Shipping jessie without SELinux enabled was the right thing to do, if the alternative was: not shipping jessie; or shipping borked jessie with borked SELinux support on by default. Those who know what they are doing can turn it on with all that entails.

You gripe about kernel 3.16 LTS but provide no support for your statement. With a cursory search I can't find any. If it was such a big deal I have to assume I would. For my part I use Jessie on the desktop and server and have not encountered these mysterious kernel problems of which you complain. Again, you may have wished for some reason that they shipped with 3.18 or 4.x, but they shipped. They have 10 official ports and 20K+ packages to deal with, I'm sorry they didn't release with your pet kernel version. Again, those who know what they are doing can upgrade jessie's kernel themselves if they are wedded to the new features.

So, massive steps backwards?

Re: Docker for Mac and Windows Is Now Generally Available and Ready for Production

#36

Post by amorphid »

gtirloni wrote: post #11
yladiz wrote: post #8

I don't use Docker much now, but in my experience the reliance on Virtualbox (on Mac) was a little clunky and annoying, and I really wished for native support without Virtualbox. I'm super happy to see that's here!

I think it makes sense to depend on the "native" virtualization solutions for each operating system (Hyper-V and xhyve). We have been using Vagrant and VirtualBox heavily and the new Docker for Windows/Mac is making us reconsider that since you can't easily use more than one hypervisor on the same dev machine without some hassle. We might be building our Vagrant boxes for these other hypervisors soon. VirtualBox stil…

I believe xhyve works fine with recent versions of VirtualBox, since xhyve is a pure userland app (aka no kernel extensions). Check out the issues section in the xhyve readme...

https://github.com/mist64/xhyve/blob/master/README.md

Re: Docker for Mac and Windows Is Now Generally Available and Ready for Production

#37

Post by yimman »

jmspring wrote: post #5
senex wrote: post #2

I've been tracking the beta for a while. I'm confused about this announcement. These issues still seem unresolved? (1) docker can peg the CPU until it's restarted https://forums.docker.com/t/com-docker-xhyve-and-com-docker-... (2) pinata was removed, so it can't be configured from CLI scripts https://forums.docker.com/t/pinata-missing-in-latest-mac-bet... (3) it's not possible to establish an ip-level route from the…

Sadly, the state of things, be it the Docker ecosystem or others, "ready for production" means something much different than it did years ago. For me, the definition of ready for production, Debian is a good example of the opposite end of Docker.

This isn't a product that's "ready for production"; it's a product company declaring that it is.

This means what it's always meant: that the company believes the sum they'll make by convincing people it's "production ready" is greater than the sum they'll lose from people realizing it isn't.

Keep in mind the optimal state of affairs for Docker Inc. is one where everyone is using Docker and everyone requires an enterprise contract to have it work.

Re: Docker for Mac and Windows Is Now Generally Available and Ready for Production

#39

Post by mherrmann »

rhinoceraptor wrote: post #15
jmspring wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly, the state of things, be it the Docker ecosystem or others, "ready for production" means something much different than it did years ago. For me, the definition of ready for production, Debian is a good example of the opposite end of Docker.

I think by 'production', they mean 'ready for general use on developer laptops'. No one in their right mind is deploying actual production software on Docker, on OS X/Windows. I've been using it on my laptop daily for a month or two now, and it's been great. Certainly much better than the old Virtualbox setup.

I'm still using VirtualBox. Could you elaborate why Docker is better?
Post reply on HN