LXC vs. Docker
earthly.dev
LXC vs. Docker
1–10 of 147 posts
Re: LXC vs. Docker
#2I like the docker way of one thing, one process, per container. LXC seems a bit different.
However, an exciting thing to me is the Cambrian explosion of alternatives to docker: podman, nerdctl, even lima for creating a linux vm and using containerd on macos looks interesting.
Re: LXC vs. Docker
#3Apples to oranges.
LXC can be directly compared with a small, and quite insignificant, part of Docker: container runtime. Docker became popular not because it can run containers, many tools before Docker could do that (LXC included).
Docker became popular because it allows one to build, publish and then consume containers.
Re: LXC vs. Docker
#4One major limitation of LXC is that there is no way to easily self host images. Often the the official images for many distributions are buggy. For example, the official Ubuntu images seem to come with a raft of known issues.
Based on my limited interactions with it, I'd recommend staying away from LXC unless absolutely neccesary.
Re: LXC vs. Docker
#5I like the docker way of one thing, one process, per container. LXC seems a bit different. However, an exciting thing to me is the Cambrian explosion of alternatives to docker: podman, nerdctl, even lima for creating a linux vm and using containerd on macos looks interesting.
I recently started using containerd inside Nomad, a breath of fresh and simple air after failed k8s setups!
Re: LXC vs. Docker
#6One major limitation of LXC is that there is no way to easily self host images. Often the the official images for many distributions are buggy. For example, the official Ubuntu images seem to come with a raft of known issues. Based on my limited interactions with it, I'd recommend staying away from LXC unless absolutely neccesary.
I've only played around with LXC/LXD a little bit, what are some of the Ubuntu image issues? I did a quick google, but the first results seemed to be questions about hosting on Ubuntu rather than with the images themselves.
Re: LXC vs. Docker
#7One major limitation of LXC is that there is no way to easily self host images. Often the the official images for many distributions are buggy. For example, the official Ubuntu images seem to come with a raft of known issues. Based on my limited interactions with it, I'd recommend staying away from LXC unless absolutely neccesary.
In Proxmox "self hosting" meaning having a folder with LXC images is part of the distribution. You can download templates from online sources and use as images or create your own templates from already running LXCs. Or maybe you mean self hosting in another way?
Re: LXC vs. Docker
#8LXC has been so stable and great to work with for many years. I have had services in production on LXC containers and it has been a joy. I can not say the same about things I have tried to maintain in production with Docker, in which I had similar experiences to [0], albeit around that time and therefore arguably not recently.
For a fantastic way to work with LXC containers I recommend the free and open Debian based hypervisor distribution Proxmox [1].
[0], https://thehftguy.com/2016/11/01/docker-in-production-an-his...
Re: LXC vs. Docker
#9I like the docker way of one thing, one process, per container. LXC seems a bit different. However, an exciting thing to me is the Cambrian explosion of alternatives to docker: podman, nerdctl, even lima for creating a linux vm and using containerd on macos looks interesting.
I recently started using containerd inside Nomad, a breath of fresh and simple air after failed k8s setups!
Oh, Nomad looks interesting. Why should someone reach for it vs K8S?
Re: LXC vs. Docker
#10I use LXC containers as my development environments.
When I changed my setup from expensive Mac Books to an expensive work station with a cheap laptop as front end to work remotely this was the best configuration I found.
It took me few hours to have everything running but I love it now. New project is creating a new container add a rule to iptables and I have it ready in few seconds.