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

Microsoft announces Hyper-V Containers

azure.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 148 posts

Re: Microsoft announces Hyper-V Containers

#71

Post by atomi »

johngossman wrote: post #64
wmf wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft is doing OS-level containers and they are also going to allow running containers in VMs.

Trying to clarify. We are talking about 3 things: 1) OS virtualization for Windows. We announced this last year: http://azure.microsoft.com/blog/2014/10/15/new-windows-serve... 2) Nano Server -- A small Windows Server sku. Perfect for containers, but also useful for other scenarios where you need a small, cloud optimized Windows 3) Hyper-V Containers -- Think if you wanted to optimize a hypervisor with assumption tha…

In other words, if you want to run a Linux based Docker container on Windows you're still going to need Virtual Box.

Re: Microsoft announces Hyper-V Containers

#72

Post by binarycrusader »

bydo wrote: post #65
binarycrusader wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot the part where Solaris did containers first in 2005. Others "realised" the value of this later and started improving upon the ideas contained within. Although I'm sure many might argue that this is the natural conclusion of virtualization.

And where FreeBSD did jails in 2000 (or actually a bit earlier). https://www.freebsd.org/releases/4.0R/notes.html

Yes, everyone refers to jails, but I think most people would agree that jails weren't really containers. They didn't provide true isolation for a set of applications. I guess you could argue they were the original prototype for them though.

Solaris containers are the first "lightweight virtualization" technology that I'm personally aware of that provided true isolation of one more processes from the host operating system and host processes.

Re: Microsoft announces Hyper-V Containers

#74

Post by binarycrusader »

chatmasta wrote: post #67
binarycrusader wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot the part where Solaris did containers first in 2005. Others "realised" the value of this later and started improving upon the ideas contained within. Although I'm sure many might argue that this is the natural conclusion of virtualization.

Good point. The idea of containerization has existed for a long time. A widespread implementation of it has not. The levels of abstraction are "idea of containerization" -> kernel implementation -> userspace tools. LXC, Solaris Containers, BSD jails all exist at kernel level of abstraction. Docker, Rocket, lxc-tools exist at userspace level of abstraction. For any component at a given level of abstraction to gain wid…

Solaris containers are no longer just a kernel level of abstraction though. As of Solaris 11.2 they're also capable of providing a near-system-level of abstraction via "Kernel Zones":

http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E36784_01/html/E37629/

These allow virtualization of multiple, independent instances of the operating system each with their own version of the kernel and processes. It is not the same as running multiple instances of VMWare, etc. since it is specifically designed to handle virtual Solaris instances:

https://blogs.oracle.com/zoneszone/entry/install_a_kernel_zo...

Re: Microsoft announces Hyper-V Containers

#75

Post by kbenson »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #23
kirinan wrote: post #7

This will be what takes containers into the mainstream businesses. Companies may adopt docker or other instead of this, but Microsoft creating their own version of it means its a viable technology. Im more interested in the new frameworks and technologies that get adopted because of this than the fact that its in use. Traditional Java web projects that are hosted on Tomcat/JBoss don't run well inside containers but t…

Microsoft creating their own version means the technology is viable? I think people have been using 'the technology' for years, without any input from Microsoft. It doesn't need to be anointed by Microsoft to be 'viable'.

It doesn't mean it wasn't viable before, it's just another piece of evidence, which many more people will be exposed to, that it is viable.

Re: Microsoft announces Hyper-V Containers

#76

Post by tkmcc »

dordoka wrote: post #46
ochoseis wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since this is all remote powershell, it would be nice if MS/Windows introduced a native SSH server. That would probably help drive some conversion for people used to the posix world.

While they are at it, they could create a posix compatible layer for Windows. That would really drive some conversion. edit: after rereading my comment and seeing the downvotes, just to clarify, it was a serious, not negative suggestion. :)

There used to be Windows Services for UNIX (a.k.a. Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX

https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc771470.aspx

Re: Microsoft announces Hyper-V Containers

#77

Post by nickstinemates »

atomi wrote: post #71
johngossman wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trying to clarify. We are talking about 3 things: 1) OS virtualization for Windows. We announced this last year: http://azure.microsoft.com/blog/2014/10/15/new-windows-serve... 2) Nano Server -- A small Windows Server sku. Perfect for containers, but also useful for other scenarios where you need a small, cloud optimized Windows 3) Hyper-V Containers -- Think if you wanted to optimize a hypervisor with assumption tha…

In other words, if you want to run a Linux based Docker container on Windows you're still going to need Virtual Box.

Or Hyper-V, or VMWare Equivalent (Fusion/Workstation/etc)

Re: Microsoft announces Hyper-V Containers

#78

Post by mushiake »

tkmcc wrote: post #76
dordoka wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While they are at it, they could create a posix compatible layer for Windows. That would really drive some conversion. edit: after rereading my comment and seeing the downvotes, just to clarify, it was a serious, not negative suggestion. :)

There used to be Windows Services for UNIX (a.k.a. Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Services_for_UNIX https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc771470.aspx

They ditched in Windows Server 2012.

Now recommend cygwin.

"The Subsystem for UNIX-based Applications (SUA) is deprecated. If you use the SUA POSIX subsystem with this release, use Hyper-V to virtualize the server. If you use the tools provided by SUA, switch to Cygwin's POSIX emulation, or use either mingw-w64 (available from Sourceforge.net) or MinGW (available from MinGW.org) for doing a native port. " https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh831568.aspx

Re: Microsoft announces Hyper-V Containers

#79

Post by cwyers »

lawl wrote: post #62
wmf wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft is doing OS-level containers and they are also going to allow running containers in VMs.

That's what you would assume when you look at the image. But > Hyper-V Containers, a new container deployment option with enhanced isolation powered by Hyper-V virtualization. Everything written tells a different story. "Hyper-V virtualization" means virtual machines, making it not a container. They just try to make that sound like a feature. Or do you have more information than I do?

All we have is a press release. The diagram and the constant references to containers would seem to indicate these are, well, containers. You're picking at a few things and assuming they mean that the rest of the release is wrong. Why?

Re: Microsoft announces Hyper-V Containers

#80

Post by keypusher »

kirinan wrote: post #31
dordoka wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you please explain what kind of issues did you find running tomcat/jboss inside containers? We've been running several apps on docker and so far no problem. Thanks a lot in advance.

Tomcat/Jboss are resource hogs and tend to not do well in sandboxed environments as it takes away a lot of the configurability/tuning that they provide/need for scaling. In addition, people tend to deploy multiple applications per application server to keep resources requirements down: containizeration tends not to lend itself to multi-application stategies (in particular resource heavy applications like those that r…

As someone that has deployed multiple production applications in Tomcat and Jetty, I would never choose Jetty again. The concept is good but it has severe quality issues and does not offer the same stability as Tomcat. At one point we had to fork Jetty to fix critical problems, never again.
Post reply on HN