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

Microsoft, RedHat, IBM, Docker, Mesosphere, CoreOS and SaltStack join Kubernetes

googlecloudplatform.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 56 posts

Re: Microsoft, RedHat, IBM, Docker, Mesosphere, CoreOS and SaltStack join Kubernetes

#4

Post by Karunamon »

djb_hackernews wrote: post #2

crickets from VMWare/EMC. Docker/containers will eat their lunch if they don't jump in and get involved.

I think that's the way the landscape is changing.. light weight and easily-managed containers rather than virtualizing entire systems.

It's just one level of abstraction up. First the hardware was abstracted, and now the OS is abstracted. Once we can reliably and seamlessly shift applications (not VMs) around generic pools of compute resources, to coin a phrase, you're going to see some serious shit!

Interesting times we live in.

Re: Microsoft, RedHat, IBM, Docker, Mesosphere, CoreOS and SaltStack join Kubernetes

#5

Post by ifup »

The cool thing that is that we have a number of companies contributing significant technologies to the open source ecosystem that build a stack of software that gets us closer to running distributed systems in a reasonable reproducible manner:

- Google is bringing kubernetes (k8s) which represents their experience in deploying cluster wide applications

- CoreOS is bringing etcd to the table for the cluster wide decisions in k8s

- Docker is bringing a format that makes getting your applications isolated and running quickly

Re: Microsoft, RedHat, IBM, Docker, Mesosphere, CoreOS and SaltStack join Kubernetes

#7

Post by parley »

Karunamon wrote: post #4
djb_hackernews wrote: post #2

crickets from VMWare/EMC. Docker/containers will eat their lunch if they don't jump in and get involved.

I think that's the way the landscape is changing.. light weight and easily-managed containers rather than virtualizing entire systems. It's just one level of abstraction up. First the hardware was abstracted, and now the OS is abstracted. Once we can reliably and seamlessly shift applications (not VMs) around generic pools of compute resources, to coin a phrase, you're going to see some serious shit! Interesting time…

It may very well go that way, but I think unikernels (like MirageOS (http://http://www.openmirage.org/) are very interesting as well. A paravirtualized unikernel should be able to carry less overhead than regular virtualized OSs and be able to operate completely in ring0/kernelspace.

Pair that with all the hw acceleration for virtualization available these days and you may get some pretty lean and fast virtualization that also more easily support hybrid deployments (Container software needs to be built for specific container host OSs and libs(depending on how much is bundled in each container)).

Also, the security implications of containers vs (para)-virtualization are different, so I think my personal jury's still out on that one too.

But I do agree that these are interesting times, for sure. And containers may win, I just don't think it's a done deal just yet. :)

Re: Microsoft, RedHat, IBM, Docker, Mesosphere, CoreOS and SaltStack join Kubernetes

#8

Post by binarycrusader »

Karunamon wrote: post #4
djb_hackernews wrote: post #2

crickets from VMWare/EMC. Docker/containers will eat their lunch if they don't jump in and get involved.

I think that's the way the landscape is changing.. light weight and easily-managed containers rather than virtualizing entire systems. It's just one level of abstraction up. First the hardware was abstracted, and now the OS is abstracted. Once we can reliably and seamlessly shift applications (not VMs) around generic pools of compute resources, to coin a phrase, you're going to see some serious shit! Interesting time…

This is not a swipe at Docker; it's an interesting technology if you're running Linux and I'm sure it will be very valuable to many.

However, let's not forget that Solaris had this functionality first.

Solaris has offered hypervisor-level virtualization (LDOMS) on SPARC, light-weight "virtualization" (Containers/Zones) on SPARC/x86, and now offers full system virtualization out of the box (Kernel Zones) SPARC/x86.

And there's also OpenStack and Puppet system management integration in Solaris 11.2+.

Re: Microsoft, RedHat, IBM, Docker, Mesosphere, CoreOS and SaltStack join Kubernetes

#9

Post by evol262 »

binarycrusader wrote: post #8
Karunamon wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's the way the landscape is changing.. light weight and easily-managed containers rather than virtualizing entire systems. It's just one level of abstraction up. First the hardware was abstracted, and now the OS is abstracted. Once we can reliably and seamlessly shift applications (not VMs) around generic pools of compute resources, to coin a phrase, you're going to see some serious shit! Interesting time…

This is not a swipe at Docker; it's an interesting technology if you're running Linux and I'm sure it will be very valuable to many. However, let's not forget that Solaris had this functionality first. Solaris has offered hypervisor-level virtualization (LDOMS) on SPARC, light-weight "virtualization" (Containers/Zones) on SPARC/x86, and now offers full system virtualization out of the box (Kernel Zones) SPARC/x86. An…

Not really. Even in an absolute sense, linux-vserver is/was contemporary with zones.

Yes, in the sense that partitioning technology isn't new. zones and jails are comparable to vserver/openvz/lxc. vpars, lpars, and ldoms have analogues on mainframes. Various hypervisor technologies (xen, kvm, vmkernel) are also not unique to solaris, and were done on Linux.

What Docker offers that none of these do not is that it's containerization for applications without the "weight" of even zones. It's not virtualizing systems. It's starting one application in its own container. That's it.

I don't know who's spreading this "Docker is just like zones" FUD, but it's wrong. Linux has had container-level virtualization for a decade, and LXC has had mainline support for a while. Docker builds on that, but it's different.

At the same time, EMC is not shitting themselves over docker. Application containers will not replace traditional or container virtualization for all workloads. But they will for some.

Re: Microsoft, RedHat, IBM, Docker, Mesosphere, CoreOS and SaltStack join Kubernetes

#10

Post by benjarrell »

evol262 wrote: post #9
binarycrusader wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not a swipe at Docker; it's an interesting technology if you're running Linux and I'm sure it will be very valuable to many. However, let's not forget that Solaris had this functionality first. Solaris has offered hypervisor-level virtualization (LDOMS) on SPARC, light-weight "virtualization" (Containers/Zones) on SPARC/x86, and now offers full system virtualization out of the box (Kernel Zones) SPARC/x86. An…

Not really. Even in an absolute sense, linux-vserver is/was contemporary with zones. Yes, in the sense that partitioning technology isn't new. zones and jails are comparable to vserver/openvz/lxc. vpars, lpars, and ldoms have analogues on mainframes. Various hypervisor technologies (xen, kvm, vmkernel) are also not unique to solaris, and were done on Linux. What Docker offers that none of these do not is that it's co…

Having never used Docker, if it is containerization for applications, how is it different from Application WPARs or App-V?
Post reply on HN