61–70 of 216 posts
You can't really compare VM with Docker. Managing containers with Docker + Kubernetes is far easier then managing VMs. Docker might be replaced with something else in future (i.e. rkt), but basic concept IMHO is here to stay.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
90% of the time Docker is used to solve the problem of "how do I upload this bucket of Python crud to a production server?" (Replace 'Python' with any other language to taste.) A slightly smarter .tar.gz would have solved the problem just as well.
> A slightly smarter .tar.gz would have solved the problem just as well. It's called "OS package" ;) and can provide more strict sandboxing using a systemd unit file: unit files provide seccomp, cgroups and more.
Nix tries to solve this, but it isn't there just yet.
> The same will eventually be said of Docker. I’ve yet to hear a single benefit attributed to Docker that isn’t also true of other VMs, I bought a Raspberry Pi and using a few commands, installed pre-configured Docker ARM images for 8-9 different media applications that would've taken me days to setup and manage individually. I didn't have to worry about dependencies or compilations. It just worked.
The problem of installing prepackaged applications was solved decades before Docker was a thing.
Yes, Docker is a shitty solution to just packaging applications, but it exists because Linux developers keep saying "apt exists. It's solved! What's the problem? Static linking? Why would you want that? Portable binaries? But apt is the only place you need to put your app so you don't need them!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. Very very very few people have data as big as "the internet" and the need for speed (which was the reason Google developed a look of their distributed tooling) that you get with these frameworks. And it really only makes sense to have permanent infrastructure for distributed computing if you're constantly using it. Like if you're constantly rebuilding an index of the internet. Which most people aren't. For occas…
It is very, very, very common for companies to have enough data to need a distributed approach to ETL and especially common if they are doing any machine learning which is most of them. In telcos you have network telemetry data. In supermarkets and retail you have purchase data and often credit card gateway data. In banking and finance you obviously have transaction data. And with Kubernetes you still need a compute…
Note I'm not saying all. Just 99%, like the parents comment referred to. That leftover 1% are the companies you can name off the top of your head. ExxonMobil, Target, Chase, Visa, etc.
I don't understand how these are comparable. Hadoop solved a hard problem that nobody had. Docker solves a simple problem that everyone has. It would make sense if you're talking about kubernetes and using it to build hundreds of microservices because it's currently in fashion. Whether you're using Docker, Packer, Ansible or whatever doesn't matter. They are all a solution to the same problem and saying one is better…
>Docker solves a simple problem that everyone has. Docker provides an (IMHO pretty buggy) isolation layer that lies between "keeping things that need to be kept separate in separate folders" and "keeping things that need to be kept separate in separate virtual machines". I actually don't have the need for the level of isolation below VM and above folder very often. IMHO this level only really makes sense when contain…
It's great that you compile postgres but I just want to run it in a clean and portable way, along with several other programs, and without learning new workflows for each one. Docker containers give people more options to package and run software in a simple standardized process while offloading the tedious system details that don't matter. That's progress.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Docker solves a simple problem that everyone has. Docker provides an (IMHO pretty buggy) isolation layer that lies between "keeping things that need to be kept separate in separate folders" and "keeping things that need to be kept separate in separate virtual machines". I actually don't have the need for the level of isolation below VM and above folder very often. IMHO this level only really makes sense when contain…
I sort of agree with this, but the advantage I see of Docker is in providing a "standard" (ymmv) interface that's less heavyweight than running an entire simulated virtual machine, but less dependent on the idiosyncrasies of a specific environment. I can give my coworker a docker image and it mostly "just work" without failing because she happens to be running a slightly different version of Ubuntu with different sys…
> I can give my coworker a docker image and it mostly "just work" without failing because she happens to be running a slightly different version of Ubuntu with different system libraries present.
"I can give my coworker a VM image and it mostly "just work" without failing because she happens to be running a slightly different version of Ubuntu with different system libraries present."
and also:
"I can give my coworker a full system container image and it mostly "just work" without failing because she happens to be running a slightly different version of Ubuntu with different system libraries present."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Docker solves a simple problem that everyone has. Docker provides an (IMHO pretty buggy) isolation layer that lies between "keeping things that need to be kept separate in separate folders" and "keeping things that need to be kept separate in separate virtual machines". I actually don't have the need for the level of isolation below VM and above folder very often. IMHO this level only really makes sense when contain…
90% of the time Docker is used to solve the problem of "how do I upload this bucket of Python crud to a production server?" (Replace 'Python' with any other language to taste.) A slightly smarter .tar.gz would have solved the problem just as well.
A container is vastly more powerful for running an application than a tar file.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Hadoop solved a hard problem that nobody had. I'm genuinely curious, if you want to search over big data, which should be a pretty common procedure these days, what alternatives are there to a distributed file system? A dfs seems very complex to me. And it is not clear too me what alternative system designs a dfs will outperform. Is a dfs the only solution to big data? Relational DBs do break down at a certain sca…
What's common about big data? My guess is that almost all programming jobs are in fields that produce no more data than a gb or two a month. I'm happy to be proven wrong, but I would guess that there are far more companies making project management software, time tracking apps, invoicing software, etc. than there are facebooks, googles or reddits obsessively logging every user mouse twitch. And that's data that's muc…
Yes, it definitely seems with market leadership comes big data. Seems to me big data is highly relevant. More relevant now than ever.
You can't really compare VM with Docker. Managing containers with Docker + Kubernetes is far easier then managing VMs. Docker might be replaced with something else in future (i.e. rkt), but basic concept IMHO is here to stay.
What about setup and maintenance of the infrastructure that hosts either VMs or containers? Given a mediocre number of physical machines (say, 40), which is easier, install, setup and maintain a VMWare cluster or a Kubernetes cluster? If someone has any insight, preferably backed by actual experience, it'll be most appreciated.
If you want to run 200 different services on 40 machines, you may find hand crafted VMs easier to create and forget.
If you want to run 10 services with different levels of replication and redundancy on 40 machines, then Kubernetes will do that for you.