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

Running containers without Docker

jvns.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 140 posts

Re: Running containers without Docker

#81

Post by otterley »

schmichael wrote: post #17

The nomad[0] team was just discussing today how much effort to put into our rkt support[1] (our support for rkt lags behind our docker support). So far we don't see a lot of evidence of our users taking rkt into production over Docker, but I'm very curious if there's a significant number of users like Julia looking to avoid running docker in production. From a nomad developer standpoint, while building long command s…

I'm just waiting for rkt to mature a bit. I personally don't see much value in running the Docker engine in a production context. It adds needless complexity to what should be a relatively simple solution.

Re: Running containers without Docker

#82

Post by otterley »

aorth wrote: post #76
masterleep wrote: post #37

Try systemd containers (e.g, systemd-nspawn) if you're on a systemd distro like Ubuntu 16.04.

systemd-nspawn is great! The workflow feels much more native than Docker on GNU/Linux host. The easy integration with networking, BTRFS snapshots, etc is very powerful.

Please upvote my feature request for zfs snapshot support! https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/4272

Re: Running containers without Docker

#83

Post by throwaway_exer »

twblalock wrote: post #47
orf wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're bring incredibly hostile over something very trivial. Docker wasn't 'recommended' for production until 1.0: https://blog.docker.com/2014/06/its-here-docker-1-0/

Docker was always intended to run in production. That was the goal from the beginning. The developers recommended against running it in production before the 1.0 release because it was in beta. Developers of many products that are intended to run in production do the same thing before the first stable version is released. That is not the same thing as saying that Docker was never intended to be used in production, an…

> Whether or not you like Docker, or think it works well in production, is immaterial to this.

Actually I don't agree with that at all. Saying something is or will be ready for production with nothing to back that statement up is marketing, not reality.

A similar example is Virtualbox. It's intended as a production VM, but I don't know anybody who does that. They use it for development and deploy to a different environment. Intentions are irrelevant when it just doesn't work reliably in reality.

Re: Running containers without Docker

#84

Post by eitland »

orf wrote: post #44
twblalock wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is the oldest copy of the Docker website on Wayback Machine, from the month that Docker was first released: https://web.archive.org/web/20130323002800/http://docker.io/ The title is "Docker: the Linux container runtime." So, your assertion that "Docker is a developer tool, not a container runtime" is simply false. The text clearly describes deployment of docker containers as much more than simple development too…

You're bring incredibly hostile over something very trivial. Docker wasn't 'recommended' for production until 1.0: https://blog.docker.com/2014/06/its-here-docker-1-0/

> You're bring incredibly hostile over something very trivial.

Are you sure you replied to the correct post?

twblalock seems to me to be the calm but persistent voice in this detached subtread.

Re: Running containers without Docker

#85

Post by Annatar »

shykes wrote: post #24
moondev wrote: post #2

What is the motivation and benefit for running containers without docker? Docker is by far the more mature and adopted development tool. It also runs great on windows, macos and linux. While k8s can run containers via the rkt runtime, it's still pretty new and will probably introduce unnecessary headache and edge cases. Docker also has a head start on a vibrant ecosystem for base images. In my opinion it would be bet…

Docker founder here. > What is the motivation and benefit for running containers without docker? I regularly hear from people who want to run containers without Docker. There are several motivations, all of which are perfectly valid: 1. Learning . It's fun to build things from scratch to understand how they work under the hood. 2. Bad experience . Early versions of Docker were quite buggy, and we initially struggled…

Docker founder here.

Great! There is one question I would like to have answered, by you and you alone:

if I'm using SmartOS, and therefore zones, and all my applications and configurations are packaged into OS packages, and I use imgadm(1M), vmadm(1M), and Smart DataCenter (SDC), what do I need Docker for?

Re: Running containers without Docker

#86

Post by wlamartin »

alex- wrote: post #19

I was introduced to linux cgroups and namespaces via my use of docker. It is a fantastic tool for using these concepts quickly and I don't currently see rocket etc overthrowing dockers dominance in the market place. However I do sense (and feel my self at times) a growing upset with the usability/ stability of the docker engine. The OCI (Open Container Initiative) should allow new solutions to come to market without…

Yep, the OCI is doing great stuff. At the bottom of the Cloud Foundry stack we have Garden-Runc (https://github.com/cloudfoundry/garden-runc-release). In past we had our own homegrown containerization technology and we're super happy to have been able to swap that out entirely in place of runc - it allows us to make use of the significant engineering talent contributed and has enabled us to move faster and reduce risk.

We're also buying into the image-spec for this reason.

Right now the focus is in underpinning CF, so although it is production ready functionally, it lacks the pretty fantastic user experience that Docker brings. Perhaps allowing us to reduce our focus on the containerizer, we'll be able to spend more time improving UX - which would be neat.

I believe the Kubernetes team is working on a simple implementation of the Kube API which is a thin wrapper around runc as well - so you're right, there are some cool things coming around as a result of the OCI.

Re: Running containers without Docker

#87

Post by tinco »

Annatar wrote: post #85
shykes wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Docker founder here. > What is the motivation and benefit for running containers without docker? I regularly hear from people who want to run containers without Docker. There are several motivations, all of which are perfectly valid: 1. Learning . It's fun to build things from scratch to understand how they work under the hood. 2. Bad experience . Early versions of Docker were quite buggy, and we initially struggled…

Docker founder here. Great! There is one question I would like to have answered, by you and you alone: if I'm using SmartOS, and therefore zones, and all my applications and configurations are packaged into OS packages, and I use imgadm(1M), vmadm(1M), and Smart DataCenter (SDC), what do I need Docker for?

Nothing. You've already spent all the time and effort that Docker would save you. Have fun maintaining OS packages.

Re: Running containers without Docker

#88

Post by gnosek »

indexerror wrote: post #69
schmichael wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One large difference is that docker has a daemon that exposes an HTTP API and acts more or less like an init for containers. The docker daemon has historically had some stability issues as well as some security implications. Running a command line tool like rkt is a vastly smaller attack surface and less complex stack overall.

> docker has a daemon that exposes an HTTP API This API has to enabled explicitly. Docker daemon works by using a unix socket instead ( "/var/run/docker.sock" ). > acts more or less like an init for containers There is Docker daemon and there is Docker CLI. Both have separate scopes.

> There is Docker daemon and there is Docker CLI. Both have separate scopes.

Docker CLI is glorified curl, everything happens in the daemon (containerd being logically -- but finally not physically -- part of the daemon).

Re: Running containers without Docker

#89

Post by dln_eintr »

masterleep wrote: post #37

Try systemd containers (e.g, systemd-nspawn) if you're on a systemd distro like Ubuntu 16.04.

rkt actually uses systemd-nspawn to run and namespace the container. What rkt "adds" before that is downloading, verifying managing the container image and setting up the cgroup for resource limitation.

https://github.com/coreos/rkt/blob/master/Documentation/deve...

Re: Running containers without Docker

#90

Post by pdx6 »

vacri wrote: post #74
seabrookmx wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> run containers on ECS Presumably ECS has its own alerting mechanisms similar to CloudFormation and ElasticBeanstalk (I've only used the latter two, not the former).

In my experience, AWS alerting only sends one alert once per issue. If you're asleep when the single SMS comes through, tough. Nagios will nag you until you do something about it... Maybe ECS is different. I haven't played with it, but I imagine it's "make an SNS topic" like everything else.

Send the AWS alarms to opsgenie or pager duty and they will nag you based on a single event, including escalations.
Post reply on HN