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

21–30 of 56 posts

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

#21

Post by binarycrusader »

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…

Sorry, but I'm going to disagree.

linux-vserver is not contemporary with zones. If you think that it is, you haven't looked at Solaris zones technology very carefully.

linux-vserver requires the kernel to be patched; Solaris zones does not.

linux-vserver has no clustering or process migration capability; Solaris zones in combination with LDOMs gives you a path for live migration.

linux-vserver networking is based on isolation, not virtualization. This means each virtual server can't create its own internal routing or firewall setup -- Solaris zones can.

linux-vserver doesn't fully virtualize the system; clock, parts of /proc and /sys are not virtualized.

So no, linux-vservers are not equivalents.

Yes, docker offers containerization -- but not sufficient containerization. Certainly not sufficient for security purposes as have come up repeatedly in recent history.

As for the "weight" of zones; I don't know what "weight" you're talking about. Solaris zones have almost no overhead at all. They use some disk space, but we're talking less than 300MB if I recall correctly at most in a default configuration. And Solaris Zones give you several advantages that Docker doesn't provide.

Regardless, I'm certain that for some specific use cases, Docker will prove an appropriate technology.

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

#23

Post by rdtsc »

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…

> light weight and easily-managed containers rather than virtualizing entire systems.

Not if lighweight easily-manage containers can run Windows. Not just windows but any non-matching-with-host-kernel OS-es so nobody is eating VMWare's lunch yet.

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

#24

Post by rdtsc »

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…

> Docker builds on that, but it's different.

So what is different?

You wrote whole paragraph about what it isn't. But what is it then that make Docker not just LXC (other container) + scripts to manage applications in it. One could presumable still spawn a single application on any OS...

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

#25

Post by pstuart »

binarycrusader wrote: post #21
evol262 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sorry, but I'm going to disagree. linux-vserver is not contemporary with zones. If you think that it is, you haven't looked at Solaris zones technology very carefully. linux-vserver requires the kernel to be patched; Solaris zones does not. linux-vserver has no clustering or process migration capability; Solaris zones in combination with LDOMs gives you a path for live migration. linux-vserver networking is based on…

All good, except that Solaris is a ghetto.

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

#27

Post by hhsnopek »

rdtsc wrote: post #23
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…

> light weight and easily-managed containers rather than virtualizing entire systems. Not if lighweight easily-manage containers can run Windows. Not just windows but any non-matching-with-host-kernel OS-es so nobody is eating VMWare's lunch yet.

I think after the baby boomers have left the picture in business, windows will slowly die out. Developers today are using OSX and Linux. Don't quote me, but traditional schools are the only ones using windows. My college does, and I honestly think its a learning point for all developers to know Linux over windows because of usage around the world. Tech companies are dropping windows for the opposing systems because of speed, reliability, and the current trend in design. With this happening all development, or at least what I'm seeing in the web, is mainly done on OSX or Linux. Therefore it make sense that lightweight containers will eventually eat VMWares lunch.

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

#28

Post by president »

djb_hackernews wrote: post #2

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

tell me again how Docker/containers can run Windows, which much of enterprise IT is still virtualizing

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

#29

Post by e12e »

wmf wrote: post #12
djb_hackernews wrote: post #2

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

If KVM didn't eat their lunch already, why would Docker be different?

Marketing, maturity, support and tooling?

I think the only ones that really ran with KVM were/are Joyent with their Smart OS - combining (some of the) tooling/tech that makes Solaris Zones great with a Free and Open operating system, freedom from Sun/Oracle and support for many guest platforms (and/or low overhead "native" zones).

I think the only real downside of Smart OS is the same as with Open Solaris (or pretty much any other "it isn't Linux"-unix-like OS'): drivers and hw support.

The great thing with Linux as a host, is that (edge cases excepted) you can literally run in on your entire infrastructure (right now, or in the near probable future) -- from phones and tablets via desktops and laptops through servers, clusters and pretty much anything beyond.

I'm sure we'll see some backlashes from the new monoculture, but I think overall it's a bright future.

And we can have our occasional parties arguing for why everyone should really use (Dragonfly|Free|Open)BSD/(Open)Solaris/Plan9 because it has X, does Y better and has more consistent and better documentation.

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

#30

Post by contingencies »

TLDR; Kubernetes is basically like a local copy of a specific-configuration cloud provider that uses docker. It's also Google Cloud Platform's basis, so developing against it lets you deploy your code there. As far as software goes, it's very immature/early days. Some of the pertinent architectural limitations that Kubernetes appears to have are: limited range of target OS platforms for services to target, non-standard mechanism of service relationship abstraction (read: lock-in warning), immature security model, limited support for complex network topologies (eg. hardware switch management), fixed approach to cluster scheduling/consensus.

PS. Corrections welcome, I'm just trying to help people get a grasp without bothering with the background reading.

Post reply on HN