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

Flynn - Open Source PaaS powered by Docker

flynn.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 155 posts

Re: Flynn - Open Source PaaS powered by Docker

#91

Post by druiid »

sciurus wrote: post #84
druiid wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I completely agree with this. I don't know what your internal discussions were, but at least one of your competitors has an 'enterprise' option in which they give you your own version of the toolkit. Sadly among this was that they stopped with their open-source contributions to the Cloud Foundry community (Their last update appears to have been over two years ago https://github.com/cloudfoundry/vcap/pull/105…

Selling an on-premise "Enterprise PaaS" is one of the ways Red Hat is monetizing OpenShift. https://www.openshift.com/products/enterprise

Indeed and Cloud Foundry has 'enterprise' forks as well (Stackato: http://www.activestate.com/stackato/compare-with-cloud-found...). Essentially I think there's a huge market here and all I see for DotCloud from this announcement is at least some potential scavenging of their core users.

Re: Flynn - Open Source PaaS powered by Docker

#92

Post by stevvooe »

jcastro wrote: post #86

This is great guys, good to see more people bringing PaaS-like workflow without the baggage. We've been working in this space with Juju ( http://juju.ubuntu.com ) but we're using standard LXC for containers. Using LXC allows us to support applications that run on multiple processes, and since Juju is also written in Go, It seems like it might be possible for us to work together in some interesting ways. We already ha…

Juju is a great project and you guys are way ahead of the game but the AGPL licensing is problematic for proprietary services built on that platform.

Re: Flynn - Open Source PaaS powered by Docker

#93

Post by benologist »

mwcampbell wrote: post #79
danielsiders wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Flynn is particularly appealing to companies that need to completely control their own infrastructure. In the same sense that git being open source helps, not hurts github, I think there's limited crossover between the users of Flynn and DotCloud customers.

Who in their right mind would pay $0.288 per hour (a little over $200 per month) to dotCloud for roughly the equivalent of an EC2 small instance, when with just a little extra time spent up front, they'll be able to fire up an AMI of Flynn and pay less than a quarter as much per month?

You're asking who would pay more for dotCloud vs. DIY on Amazon who themselves have a huge markup on their servers against traditional hosting?

Re: Flynn - Open Source PaaS powered by Docker

#94

Post by markramm »

progrium wrote: post #88
jcastro wrote: post #86

This is great guys, good to see more people bringing PaaS-like workflow without the baggage. We've been working in this space with Juju ( http://juju.ubuntu.com ) but we're using standard LXC for containers. Using LXC allows us to support applications that run on multiple processes, and since Juju is also written in Go, It seems like it might be possible for us to work together in some interesting ways. We already ha…

I really liked Juju. I think we operate on slightly different paradigms / abstractions. Would love to talk more though.

I agree, we have very much approached the problem from that of service administration/management rather than the "build a PaaS"approach. But, I think the "big problem" behind building a heroku style PaaS, is not getting simple scripted deployment to a container -- it is managing relationships between applications, databases, message queues, and other connected services, and I think that is where Juju could be useful to your project.

I'd also be happy to talk more about this any time.

Re: Flynn - Open Source PaaS powered by Docker

#95

Post by sp332 »

jahewson wrote: post #12

My main problem with Docker is that container IP addresses and MACs are changed after every container reboot. This means I can't have a database in one container and a web app in another because I have no way for the web app to discover the address of the database server. Seems like this would be an issue for the host-only (private) network?

Why doesn't it work to use the hostname of the database server, instead of the IP address?

Re: Flynn - Open Source PaaS powered by Docker

#96

Post by druiid »

oellegaard wrote: post #85
druiid wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well I can say that the closest alternative to this would be Cloud Foundry. Their Warden system is what manages the containers: https://github.com/cloudfoundry/warden/tree/master/warden They actually don't use LXC though and implement resource control with Cgroups. That said, Cloud Foundry is extremely difficult to get setup and running in my experience (even with the v2.0 recently released). It sounds like one big d…

+1 on the fact CF installation is tough! They recently releases a suite of scripts to help installing it on AWS. Forget about installing it manually on Open Stack (talking from experience). I can only hope Flynn gets the easy install right, so people will be able to try it out. CF is actually very plugable as well - there is a well defined internal API, which you could just add components that listens/publishes to -…

Yeah, CF is a very powerful toolkit (as you mention with the API), but part of the power seems to come coupled with the complexity. I've seen some scripts/documentation to install on Openstack (this is the best so far http://www.pistoncloud.com/2013/06/deploying-bosh-cloud-foun...), but still, it's a huge, huge pain.

Re: Flynn - Open Source PaaS powered by Docker

#97

Post by opdemand »

We at OpDemand wish the Flynn crew the best of luck. I expect more Docker-powered PaaS's to sprout up, so I'm glad Solomon and the dotCloud crew are focused so heavily on interoperability.

OpDemand will be releasing a very similar open-source project called Deis in the next few weeks. It's an open-source PaaS powered by Docker & Chef, with a Heroku-inspired workflow.

We're busy ironing out a few final issues, putting together documentation, quick-start guides, tutorials, etc.. but we are very close to launching our public 0.1.0, which will allow you to deploy your own private PaaS providing you complete control over hosting, backends, proxies and more.

Re: Flynn - Open Source PaaS powered by Docker

#98

Post by chrisfarms »

I'd love to know more about how the cluster will organized. Is there going to be some kind of master controller node, or will it be distributed and self organizing somehow?

It almost feels as tho Flynn (or maybe something build on top of Flynn) could/should be a whole minimal linux distribution (SmartOS-ish) that could just boot up into RAM, be told to read a cluster config from somewhere and then start working for the cluster accepting Docker services.

Re: Flynn - Open Source PaaS powered by Docker

#99

Post by druiid »

oellegaard wrote: post #60
coenhyde wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So am I. What's your project?

https://github.com/KristianOellegaard/puppet-dokku Lots of uncomitted changs locally. With this announcement, not sure if its worth continuing down this path.

Puppet-lint ;). But seriously, cool to see a puppet module for dokku as I imagine the author will continue to work on it even with this new project. I'd say keep working on it if you have time!

Re: Flynn - Open Source PaaS powered by Docker

#100

Post by mwcampbell »

benologist wrote: post #93
mwcampbell wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who in their right mind would pay $0.288 per hour (a little over $200 per month) to dotCloud for roughly the equivalent of an EC2 small instance, when with just a little extra time spent up front, they'll be able to fire up an AMI of Flynn and pay less than a quarter as much per month?

You're asking who would pay more for dotCloud vs. DIY on Amazon who themselves have a huge markup on their servers against traditional hosting?

I compared to EC2 primarily because it also has hourly pricing.

If I compared to DigitalOcean instead, then DotCloud would look even worse -- about 10x more expensive.

Post reply on HN