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

Bottlerocket, an open source Linux distribution built to run containers

aws.amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 135 posts

Re: Bottlerocket, an open source Linux distribution built to run containers

#41

Post by wmf »

mnd999 wrote: post #14
NathanKP wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi I'm a developer advocate in the container engineering org at AWS. I think there are a few misunderstandings here that I may be able to explain better. First Bottlerocket is not Amazon Linux 2, it is its own minimal operating system, with most components built from the ground up in Rust. This is totally different than the Amazon Linux 2 you may be familiar with (and most other operating systems for that matter). Bo…

So you saw CoreOS and thought “Let’s re:invent that wheel”?

So did every other vendor. We have two CoreOSes, Flatcar, Container-Optimized OS from Google, Bottlerocket, k3OS, etc. Fortunately these aren't just different in name; there's a lot of experimentation going on around different ways to do updates, security, etc. I hope we'll eventually see some convergence after a few years.

Re: Bottlerocket, an open source Linux distribution built to run containers

#42

Post by NathanKP »

WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #40
NathanKP wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi I'm a developer advocate in the container engineering org at AWS. I think there are a few misunderstandings here that I may be able to explain better. First Bottlerocket is not Amazon Linux 2, it is its own minimal operating system, with most components built from the ground up in Rust. This is totally different than the Amazon Linux 2 you may be familiar with (and most other operating systems for that matter). Bo…

Question: Will this be an AMI that can be deployed as an ECS cluster recipient on EC2? End Question.

Yes! It already is in fact. The ECS documentation provides the list of Bottlerocket AMI's you can launch into your ECS clusters: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonECS/latest/developerguide/...

I'd also recommend reading the ECS quickstart in the Bottlerocket repo: https://github.com/bottlerocket-os/bottlerocket/blob/develop...

Re: Bottlerocket, an open source Linux distribution built to run containers

#43

Post by WrtCdEvrydy »

NathanKP wrote: post #42
WrtCdEvrydy wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question: Will this be an AMI that can be deployed as an ECS cluster recipient on EC2? End Question.

Yes! It already is in fact. The ECS documentation provides the list of Bottlerocket AMI's you can launch into your ECS clusters: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonECS/latest/developerguide/... I'd also recommend reading the ECS quickstart in the Bottlerocket repo: https://github.com/bottlerocket-os/bottlerocket/blob/develop...

Well... i'll be modifying some launch configurations then.

Re: Bottlerocket, an open source Linux distribution built to run containers

#44

Post by freedomben »

k__ wrote: post #25
013a wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean, the CoreOS that was end-of-lifed four months ago?

At least "Fedora CoreOS" still seems to be a thing.

And Red Hat Core OS (RHCOS) for Red Hat flavored shops.

Re: Bottlerocket, an open source Linux distribution built to run containers

#45

Post by freedomben »

dpryden wrote: post #33

I'm confused about how the documentation recommends using a Kubernetes operator to manage OS updates. That seems weird and backwards to me. I would rather see an immutable OS AMI in an auto-scaled group, and just replace the node instance whenever there is an update. I can see a place for managing OS updates on an instance, but that seems more like "pets" than "cattle"... and I've always treated Kubernetes nodes like…

This is how OpenShift 4 does things. I too thought it was strange at first but now with some experience it's quite pleasant.

Can be a beast to debug though if you haven't done it before.

Re: Bottlerocket, an open source Linux distribution built to run containers

#46

Post by e12e »

NathanKP wrote: post #34
e12e wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it be safe to say that bottlerocket is a container host for running containers under a hypervisor? Or is it intended to do full hw interfacing and run bare metal?

Bottlerocket runs containers using containerd, so containers are visible as processes on the host, from its perspective, not currently isolated from each other via a hypervisor. Bottlerocket limits containers ability to interact with the host or each other via SELinux, among other things. We do have firecracker-containerd ( https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker-container... ) which is designed to allow t…

Thanks, I was more wondering what the relationship was between something like Debian GNU/linux and bottlerocket. From gp description it sounds like there's no "GNU userland", just the Linux kernel and some utility functions in rust - enough to launch containerd.

So if I have a heterogeneous collection of servers - I could install Debian, and run docker on Debian. It sounds like bottlerocket would more comfortably run on top of a hypervisor abstracting away the actual hw a bit? Eg on top of xen, kvm or VMware?

Obviously the Linux kernel can be made to run on a toaster, but maybe bottlerocket isn't ideal for that purpose?

Re: Bottlerocket, an open source Linux distribution built to run containers

#48

Post by GauntletWizard »

NathanKP wrote: post #39
abhiyerra wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. This seems more complex than just having a auto scale group that auto rotates nodes after a certain amount of time and just picking a new update when the node launches.

I can provide a little background on this. In general yes I would recommend that you just use an ASG and roll out a new AMI. However that approach can be very expensive and time-consuming at truly massive scale (1000's or even 10's of thousands of machines). Bottlerocket is built in part based on our experiences operating AWS Fargate, which obviously has as one of its needs the ability to patch a colossal number of h…

It seems to me, not to be combative, that if Fargate can't afford the "noschedule: node is old" overhead and customers of Fargate can't handle their containers restarting on a regular basis, there's something wrong with your management engine or with their design and implementation. Much of the point of containerization is that you can roll containers often and run enough of them that you never have a single point of failure. What part of that assumption is broken that destroying machines regularly doesn't work?

Re: Bottlerocket, an open source Linux distribution built to run containers

#49

Post by robszumski »

freedomben wrote: post #45
dpryden wrote: post #33

I'm confused about how the documentation recommends using a Kubernetes operator to manage OS updates. That seems weird and backwards to me. I would rather see an immutable OS AMI in an auto-scaled group, and just replace the node instance whenever there is an update. I can see a place for managing OS updates on an instance, but that seems more like "pets" than "cattle"... and I've always treated Kubernetes nodes like…

This is how OpenShift 4 does things. I too thought it was strange at first but now with some experience it's quite pleasant. Can be a beast to debug though if you haven't done it before.

Aside from being faster than replacing all of the hosts, the reason OpenShift does it this way is that you can't just burn down and replace a fleet of bare metal machines. While re-PXEing is possible, this takes a ton of time and stresses that infrastructure.

Doing the same on cloud, metal, OpenStack, VMware, etc means that your cluster's operational experience remains the same and in most cases is less disruptive.

edit: having your nodes controlled by your cluster has a number of other benefits aside from patching, like the Node Tuning Operator that can tweak settings based on the types of workloads running on that set of machines.

Re: Bottlerocket, an open source Linux distribution built to run containers

#50

Post by simonebrunozzi »

cle wrote: post #28
NathanKP wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi I'm a developer advocate in the container engineering org at AWS. I think there are a few misunderstandings here that I may be able to explain better. First Bottlerocket is not Amazon Linux 2, it is its own minimal operating system, with most components built from the ground up in Rust. This is totally different than the Amazon Linux 2 you may be familiar with (and most other operating systems for that matter). Bo…

I wish the blog post was just this. So much clearer. Thank you.

Amazon's PR would have not allowed that.
Post reply on HN