Docker in Production: An Update
thehftguy.com
Docker in Production: An Update
1–10 of 97 posts
Re: Docker in Production: An Update
#2> I am moderately confident that there is no-one on the planet using Docker seriously AND successfully AND without major hassle.
Though the tone of this article is very negative, the conclusion is interesting to me as someone that's considered Docker but hasn't done much with it beyond experimenting locally.
I'm assuming if there's any forum that has users that can speak to their use of Docker in production, this would be the place.
Re: Docker in Production: An Update
#3> As confirmed by internal sources, they experienced massive troubles to get Docker working in any decent condition
I call B.S. on this. Amazon wouldn't have spent so much effort on ECS if this was true.
Re: Docker in Production: An Update
#4> As confirmed by internal sources, they experienced massive troubles to get Docker working in any decent condition I call B.S. on this. Amazon wouldn't have spent so much effort on ECS if this was true.
Amazon employee confirming the article:
Re: Docker in Production: An Update
#5> I am moderately confident that there is no-one on the planet using Docker seriously AND successfully AND without major hassle. Though the tone of this article is very negative, the conclusion is interesting to me as someone that's considered Docker but hasn't done much with it beyond experimenting locally. I'm assuming if there's any forum that has users that can speak to their use of Docker in production, this wou…
We've been running docker in production since late 2013 (data science SaaS). We had some growing pains in the beginning, but since then it has been smooth sailing and a tremendous help in getting our services deployed reliably. However, we have always been very conservative when it comes to upgrading docker and have our own custom glue in place. Still, the statement that "no-one on the planet using Docker seriously AND successfully AND without major hassle" seems majorly hyperbolic.
Re: Docker in Production: An Update
#6> Google merely exposes a Docker interface, all the containers are run on internal google containerization technologies, that cannot possibly suffer from all the Docker implementation flaws.
Google running their own containerization tech with a Docker interface seems a bit far-fetched given the level of integration of Kubernetes with Docker. That's totally possible though, I'd like to read more about it.
Re: Docker in Production: An Update
#7> I am moderately confident that there is no-one on the planet using Docker seriously AND successfully AND without major hassle. Though the tone of this article is very negative, the conclusion is interesting to me as someone that's considered Docker but hasn't done much with it beyond experimenting locally. I'm assuming if there's any forum that has users that can speak to their use of Docker in production, this wou…
Our experience is that it has made running servers locally a hassle because Docker for mac sucks beyond belief but it has been awesome in production. For us the real positive is Kubernetes and tbh docker would be useless without it. I really could care less about docker other than that the Dockerfile format is easy enough to use.
We went through the gammut of swarm etc. and were never able to get any of them to work in a meaningful way.
Re: Docker in Production: An Update
#8> I am moderately confident that there is no-one on the planet using Docker seriously AND successfully AND without major hassle. Though the tone of this article is very negative, the conclusion is interesting to me as someone that's considered Docker but hasn't done much with it beyond experimenting locally. I'm assuming if there's any forum that has users that can speak to their use of Docker in production, this wou…
We're technically using it in production for my site, www.bugdedupe.com, but we're still in beta, so we haven't experienced heavy usage.
We've been using Kubernetes to deploy Docker containers on Google Container Engine, and while there have been a few issues due to Docker/Kubernetes (namely, getting the containers to expose localhost to each other, and to expose themselves to the world), the issues that we've had so far have been issues that we would have been bit by eventually. Namely, if we hadn't been forced to deal with the issues now, we would have been screwed later. There have been some weird bugs due to the internal environment that containers use (we had extremely slow DNS lookups that caused our request times to shoot up to 9s each). These issues have been transient though, so it's not clear that it's Dockers fault, or if we're making mistakes in our code.
Docker has made our deployment much easier. You just build & push your container, and you instantly have a versioned deployable instance of your code. Kubernetes makes it extremely easy to rollout or rollback containers, so I have nothing but good things to say about containers.
Re: Docker in Production: An Update
#9It's great that hftguy thinks Google Container Engine is stable (I work on it) but I'm sorry to say it's very easy to prove that is, in fact, running Docker on the nodes.
You can just SSH into one and see for yourself.
Kubernetes was built from the ground up to orchestrate Docker. CoreOS did a lot of work to make it possible to trade rkt in for Docker's engine, and the cri (Container Runtime Interface) is now generalising that so that there is a clear abstraction between the kubelet and the engines it orchestrates. Read about it here: http://blog.kubernetes.io/2016/12/container-runtime-interfac...
If you want to do things that are different to what we provide support for on GKE as a Managed Service (tm), you're able to run your own Kubernetes clusters on GCE. (We do let you run a Kubernetes alpha version, but only on non-supported clusters that self-destruct after 30 days.
Re: Docker in Production: An Update
#10I am neither a Docker expert nor evangelist, and I have my own gripes and frustrations with it, but this article is full of misinformation and FUD. To wit:
> CoreOS is an operating [system] that can only run Docker and is exclusively intended to run Docker.
No, it isn't. (Maybe if you substitute "Docker" with "containers.")
> First, the main benefit of Docker is to unify dev and production. Having a separate OS in production only for containers totally ruins this point.
No, it doesn't. Completely the opposite, in fact: Docker makes it possible to not care about OS differences between dev, test, and prod.
> Docker on Debian is major no-go
> Docker is 100% guaranteed suicide on Debian 8 and it’s been since the inception of Docker a few years ago
> Debian froze the kernel to a version that doesn’t support anything Docker needs and the few components that are present are rigged with bugs.
rubs temples It's Linux. It's Debian. You can run any kernel you want. There are plenty of repositories out there with binary kernels, including Debian's own back-ported 4.9 kernel, or you can build one from source. Because, you know, open source. I've run many instances of Jessie on Linode with their 4.8 and 4.9 kernels and it's no problem. Hundreds of companies are running Docker in production on Debian and Debian-derived systems.
> I am not aware of any serious companies than run on Ubuntu.
Just because you are not aware does not mean they do not exist. How about Netflix, Snapchat, Dropbox, Uber, and Tesla for starters?
> I cannot comment on the LTS 16 as I do not use it.
It's been out since last April. If you're serious about this survey, this is a no-brainer.
> I received quite a few comments and unfriendly emails of people saying to “just” use the latest Ubuntu beta
What? No. Just use the latest LTS.
> I am moderately confident that there is no-one on the planet using Docker seriously AND successfully AND without major hassle.
LOL