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

WebAssembly: Docker Without Containers

wasmlabs.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 313 posts

Re: WebAssembly: Docker Without Containers

#31

Post by pulse7 »

ridruejo wrote: post #16
pulse7 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this statement is true, there is no need for Docker, because JVM+JAR existed in 2008! Docker can do more than WASM or JVM+JAR: it can run non-WASM and non-JVM apps like PostgreSQL, etc...

"and non-JVM apps like PostgreSQL" PostgreSQL can (and has) been compiled to Wasm! It was on HN a couple of months ago https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33067962

If this is what is meant, then compile PostgreSQL with CLang and run the resulting LLVM binary with GraalVM on JVM...

Re: WebAssembly: Docker Without Containers

#33

Post by haspok »

So it's kind of like GraalVM with cgroups?

How about Kubernetes, in other words, how does this scale (I understand the single process proposition, but can't see how it replaces multiple containers, which might be deployed on multiple VMs / hardware)? In other words, what is the WASM runtime running on? In the article they show a WASI layer, but that does not replace a VM / container (AFAIK), so you still need an OS to run on. I'm a bit puzzled.

EDIT: let me rephrase my question. In a docker container you can have your libraries and dependencies independent of the host system (eg. in your container you need libc 1.0, whereas your host system has libc 2.0). This is possible because the docker container does actually contain a copy of libc 1.0 if you set it up so. But in the case of WebAssembly this is no longer the case (this is what makes it possible to have smaller images).

But then you need not only the kernel from the host, but everything else around it. Unless your code does not depend or anything, or you compile ALL your dependencies to webassembly, which sounds interesting - I'm not saying it is not possible, but is this how it should work?

Re: WebAssembly: Docker Without Containers

#34

Post by lucideer »

ZitchDog wrote: post #20
lucideer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> JVM+JAR existed JVM can only run apps written for it: Docker & WASM don't have that limitation. > it can run non-WASM and non-JVM apps like PostgreSQL, etc... but WASM can run Postgres

Source?

as well as the sibling linked repo there's also https://www.crunchydata.com/developers/playground

Re: WebAssembly: Docker Without Containers

#35

Post by lucideer »

pulse7 wrote: post #24
lucideer wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> JVM+JAR existed JVM can only run apps written for it: Docker & WASM don't have that limitation. > it can run non-WASM and non-JVM apps like PostgreSQL, etc... but WASM can run Postgres

With GraalVM you can run any LLVM binary on JVM...

That is true, graal's certainly more readily comparable.

Re: WebAssembly: Docker Without Containers

#36

Post by azangru »

When will we reach a point when articles and talks no longer start with "let me explain to you what webassembly is". After all, you don't see the same introductions in articles about javascript, or python, or even rust. When seeing an article starting with such introduction - after hundreds of other articles did the same - I never know how deep to expect it to go, and whether to continue reading.

Re: WebAssembly: Docker Without Containers

#37

Post by _joel »

haspok wrote: post #33

So it's kind of like GraalVM with cgroups? How about Kubernetes, in other words, how does this scale (I understand the single process proposition, but can't see how it replaces multiple containers, which might be deployed on multiple VMs / hardware)? In other words, what is the WASM runtime running on? In the article they show a WASI layer, but that does not replace a VM / container (AFAIK), so you still need an OS t…

Yea, unsure how this replaces compose or how it would work in pods. Is there some kind of runtime planned to replace container.io so that you still get all the k8s orchestration (live/readiness, anti affininity, cgroups limits etc).

Re: WebAssembly: Docker Without Containers

#38

Post by MrJohz »

zozbot234 wrote: post #15
tony-allan wrote: post #2

If WASM+WASI existed in 2008, we wouldn't have needed to create Docker. That's how important it is. WebAssembly on the server is the future of computing. - Solomon Hykes (co-founder of Docker) https://twitter.com/solomonstre/status/1111004913222324225

Docker containers will still be far more efficient than something which has to be interpreted in a VM. The real advantage of WASM/WASI is architecture independence - and perhaps some kind of trusted verification of proof assertions in the code, which would of course be easier in a VM compared to trying to verify actual binary assembly.

Wasm doesn't need to be interpreted, it's designed to be compatible with streaming compilers to produce machine code as the file is being downloaded, which can then be optimised more completely later on. In a Docker-like situation, I would imagine that you can skip the first compilation step altogether and just generate optimised code.

I suspect that still won't be as optimal as if you'd compiled the application for the target architecture in the first place, but I would suspect for most applications the performance will be relatively negligible.

Re: WebAssembly: Docker Without Containers

#39

Post by ridruejo »

azangru wrote: post #36

When will we reach a point when articles and talks no longer start with "let me explain to you what webassembly is". After all, you don't see the same introductions in articles about javascript, or python, or even rust. When seeing an article starting with such introduction - after hundreds of other articles did the same - I never know how deep to expect it to go, and whether to continue reading.

I completely understand and we debated it a lot when writing the article. At the end, given that the audience was existing Docker users, we erred on the side of adding that introduction. In other, more technical articles we just dive right in: https://wasmlabs.dev/articles/php-dev-server-on-wasm/

Re: WebAssembly: Docker Without Containers

#40

Post by _joel »

zozbot234 wrote: post #15
tony-allan wrote: post #2

If WASM+WASI existed in 2008, we wouldn't have needed to create Docker. That's how important it is. WebAssembly on the server is the future of computing. - Solomon Hykes (co-founder of Docker) https://twitter.com/solomonstre/status/1111004913222324225

Docker containers will still be far more efficient than something which has to be interpreted in a VM. The real advantage of WASM/WASI is architecture independence - and perhaps some kind of trusted verification of proof assertions in the code, which would of course be easier in a VM compared to trying to verify actual binary assembly.

I'm still unsure how this is of benefit vs. multi-arch images? Sure one build to rule them all but using buildx isn't exactly too much work.
Post reply on HN