41–50 of 111 posts
I've casually searched for it in the past and it seems to not exist anymore. For me, one of the best parts of Docker is building a docker-image (and sharing how it was done via git). It would be cool to be able to take the same Dockerfiles and pivot them to VMs easily.
The issue with unikernels and things like Firecracker are that you can't run them on already-virtualized platforms I researched Firecracker when I was looking for an alternative to Docker for deploying FaaS functions on an OpenFaaS-like clone I was building It would have worked great if the target deployment was bare metal but if you're asking a user to deploy on IE an EC2 or Fargate or whatnot, you can't use these t…
Obviously, Firecracker being developed by AWS and AWS disabling KVM is not ideal :)
Google Cloud, for instance, allows nested virtualization, IIRC.
This reminds me: in 2015 I went to Dockercon and one booth that was fun was VMWare's. Basically they had implemented the Docker APIs on top of VMWare so that they could build and deploy VMs using Dockerfiles, etc. I've casually searched for it in the past and it seems to not exist anymore. For me, one of the best parts of Docker is building a docker-image (and sharing how it was done via git). It would be cool to be…
The issue with unikernels and things like Firecracker are that you can't run them on already-virtualized platforms I researched Firecracker when I was looking for an alternative to Docker for deploying FaaS functions on an OpenFaaS-like clone I was building It would have worked great if the target deployment was bare metal but if you're asking a user to deploy on IE an EC2 or Fargate or whatnot, you can't use these t…
This is a limitation of whatever virtualized instance you're running on, not Firecracker itself. Firecracker depends on KVM, and AWS EC2 virtualized instances don't enable KVM. But not all virtualized instance services disable KVM. Obviously, Firecracker being developed by AWS and AWS disabling KVM is not ideal :) Google Cloud, for instance, allows nested virtualization, IIRC.
This reminds me: in 2015 I went to Dockercon and one booth that was fun was VMWare's. Basically they had implemented the Docker APIs on top of VMWare so that they could build and deploy VMs using Dockerfiles, etc. I've casually searched for it in the past and it seems to not exist anymore. For me, one of the best parts of Docker is building a docker-image (and sharing how it was done via git). It would be cool to be…
Kubernetes says no... The article is light on detail. Containers and VMs have different use cases. If you self host lightweight VMs is likely the better path, however, once you in the cloud most managed services only provide support for containers.
> in the cloud most managed services only provide support for containers. Respectfully, comments like these are the reason for Kubernetes becoming a meme.
I am also not running on Kubernetes, because Kubernetes. AWS ECS and AWS Batch also only handle containerised applications. Even when deploying on EC2 I tend to use containers, as it ensures they keep working consistently if you apply patches to your EC2 environment.
The issue with unikernels and things like Firecracker are that you can't run them on already-virtualized platforms I researched Firecracker when I was looking for an alternative to Docker for deploying FaaS functions on an OpenFaaS-like clone I was building It would have worked great if the target deployment was bare metal but if you're asking a user to deploy on IE an EC2 or Fargate or whatnot, you can't use these t…
This is a limitation of whatever virtualized instance you're running on, not Firecracker itself. Firecracker depends on KVM, and AWS EC2 virtualized instances don't enable KVM. But not all virtualized instance services disable KVM. Obviously, Firecracker being developed by AWS and AWS disabling KVM is not ideal :) Google Cloud, for instance, allows nested virtualization, IIRC.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because two orders of magnitude does not mean 100x. It means on the same order as 100x.
Do you mean folks using the phrase know big-O, big-omega, big-theta, and are thinking along those lines?
I'm quite interested in seeing where slim VM's go. Personally I don't use Kubernetes, it just doesn't fit my client work which is nearly all single-server and it makes more sense to just run podman systemd units or docker-compose setups. So from that perspective, when I've peeked at firecracker, kata containers, etc, the "small dev dx" isn't quite there yet, or maybe never will get there since the players target othe…
They went to trash because containers are more convenient to use and saving few MBs of disk/memory is not what most users care. The whole idea was pretty much either use custom kernel (which inevitably have way less info on how to debug anything in it), and re-do all of the network and storage plumbing containers already do via the OS they are running one. OR just very slim linux one which at least people know how to…
This isn't about 'what most users care' about either. Most users don't really care about 99% of what container orchestration platforms offer. The providers do absolutely care that malicious users cannot punch out to get a shell on an Azure AKS controller or go digging around inside /proc to figure out what other tenants are doing unless the provider is on top of their configuration and regularly updates to match CVEs.
"most users" will end up using one of the frameworks written by a "big boy" for their stuff, and they'll end up using what's convenient for cloud providers.
The goal of microvms is ultimately to remove everything you're talking about from the equation. Kata and other microvm frameworks aim to be basically jsut another CRI which removes the "deep plumbing" you're talking about. The onus is on them to make this work, but there's an enormous financial payoff, and you'll end up with this whether you think it's worthwhile or not.
This reminds me: in 2015 I went to Dockercon and one booth that was fun was VMWare's. Basically they had implemented the Docker APIs on top of VMWare so that they could build and deploy VMs using Dockerfiles, etc. I've casually searched for it in the past and it seems to not exist anymore. For me, one of the best parts of Docker is building a docker-image (and sharing how it was done via git). It would be cool to be…
Isn't that essentially what Vagrant and Vagrantfiles do?
not sure if it would be better than Vagrant. But it was still very interesting.