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

Docker in Production: An Update

thehftguy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 97 posts

Re: Docker in Production: An Update

#11

Post by yebyen »

callumjones wrote: post #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.

Has Amazon spent a lot of effort on ECS? I am totally ignorant here, but the people who I consider more knowledgeable about AWS things have said in a nutshell that "in 2015 the things I heard about ECS were not good things, and I have basically not heard any new things since then."

Basically stating that ECS was Amazon's attempt to plant a flag in the container-space and that it was half-hearted, not done with the rigor of solutions like k8s that had additional advantages of also being cloud-agnostic, and finally that ECS was not a solution that anyone they knew was recommending or would recommend.

Re: Docker in Production: An Update

#12

Post by kordless »

> CoreOS is an operating that can only run Docker and is exclusively intended to run Docker.

This is a patently false statement and needs to be revised, especially given:

> I will not comment on it.

P.S. I'm getting downvoted for speaking the truth, no matter how pedantic it may seem. CoreOS can run rkt containers and is not exclusively intended to run Docker. One possible reason is because Docker is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room and having options is always good.

P.P.S. Gotta love the Streisand Effect. :)

Re: Docker in Production: An Update

#13

Post by merb »

the problem is, that the docker (community) or rather the company behind it, focuses on too much, instead of just doing one thing and doing it great. no they need to reimplement the world and create their own kubernetes (or some sort of it). their new website is less accessible as it was in the old version, etc... and all the new projects and people. and the various ways to configure docker. why does a simple container engine needs to have so many parameters to configure it? the network experience is still not as good as it could be and docker is still way more complicated to setup than a simple aws and some AWS AMIs.

Re: Docker in Production: An Update

#14

Post by hmottestad »

mwpmaybe wrote: post #10

I 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 pr…

Currently using docker with a Norwegian government organisation. We are very happy with it. Been running production since December. And yes, they run on Ubuntu.

Re: Docker in Production: An Update

#15

Post by [deleted] »

mwpmaybe wrote: post #10

I 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 pr…

[deleted]

Re: Docker in Production: An Update

#17

Post by holydude »

I still think that Solaris zones are / were a superior technology. Sadly it died with the demise of Solaris as an operating system. Still in use in some "must have enterprise" types of companies. I would not run anything serious on docker (definitely not yet) if I would not be heavily invested in understanding and contributing to the technology (docker codebase + related). Docker is a nice to have but absolutely abstracts too much and takes control from you. I am wondering what people like Brendand Gregg think about docker.

Re: Docker in Production: An Update

#18

Post by holydude »

merb wrote: post #13

the problem is, that the docker (community) or rather the company behind it, focuses on too much, instead of just doing one thing and doing it great. no they need to reimplement the world and create their own kubernetes (or some sort of it). their new website is less accessible as it was in the old version, etc... and all the new projects and people. and the various ways to configure docker. why does a simple contain…

It is simple imho. Docker turned into an enterprise. Attracted a lot of users (hype) and is trying to bank on it

Re: Docker in Production: An Update

#20

Post by mdekkers »

mwpmaybe wrote: post #10

I 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 pr…

It's Linux. It's Debian. You can run any kernel you want.

The guy works in finance, not an area where you can typically say "oh, no worries, we'll just push out this distro with a non-standard kernel." Enterprise IT, and specifically finance (and healthcare) have different requirements. Currently working with a client where not only the full technology stack has to be certified by accountable vendors, but all the internal documentation and customer facing content has to pass strict legal reviews.

"Here is Debian with a custom kernel" won't fly. Nether will "Here is Debian" - Ubuntu LTS will barely pass the line, and that will be after a whole lot of timewasting and ass-covering from many people involved.

Post reply on HN