11–20 of 66 posts
"Systemd and Docker don’t work well together as they both attempt to manage control groups." Has anybody hit actual issues with this? Having used Docker and systemd concurrently for a while, I can't say this has every caused conflicts, any more than the fact that both myself and my guests manage drinks in my fridge.
Docker itself as PID 1 is… creative. Good things they've thought through: - boots fast, does almost the absolute minimum it needs to get up and running - supporting user data and at least minimal config via cloud-init - properly minimal: you have to use a Debian image to set up persistent storage with mkfs.ext4! (edit: when using the ISO version, which is not the primary use case) - but helpfully familiar: you can in…
How does this differ from CoreOS?
Docker itself as PID 1 is… creative. Good things they've thought through: - boots fast, does almost the absolute minimum it needs to get up and running - supporting user data and at least minimal config via cloud-init - properly minimal: you have to use a Debian image to set up persistent storage with mkfs.ext4! (edit: when using the ISO version, which is not the primary use case) - but helpfully familiar: you can in…
I'm not sure… running a 7MB binary with tons of functionality as PID 1 sounds like a really bad idea. Possibly even worse than the usual complaints against systemd (which has at least process isolations for its various features).
(Edit: Oh, you mean Docker itself as PID 1 on RancherOS. Yes, that's true. Certainly hairier than systemd. I haven't really dug into how much they limit what system-docker can do.)
I've kicked around the idea of a "workstation" set of containers to run on top of CoreOS, but this is the biggest hump I've run into.
Curious if anyone has come up with a way to run X11 itself in a container? (there are numerous articles on running GUI apps in containers that simply need a way to talk to Xauthority or X socket, or using VNC or xpra). I'd imagine it would need to run privileged with access to device files, or something like that. I've kicked around the idea of a "workstation" set of containers to run on top of CoreOS, but this is th…
How does this differ from CoreOS?
Besides the guts of how the OS platform itself is built and runs, the major feature difference is that it doesn't have all the cluster co-ordination bits like etcd, fleet, and so on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure… running a 7MB binary with tons of functionality as PID 1 sounds like a really bad idea. Possibly even worse than the usual complaints against systemd (which has at least process isolations for its various features).
Who has a 7MB binary with tons of functionality as PID 1? That doesn't describe RancherOS or systemd. (Edit: Oh, you mean Docker itself as PID 1 on RancherOS. Yes, that's true. Certainly hairier than systemd. I haven't really dug into how much they limit what system-docker can do.)
- /usr/bin/systemd-docker = 8.4M
- /usr/bin/docker = 14.3M
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Besides the guts of how the OS platform itself is built and runs, the major feature difference is that it doesn't have all the cluster co-ordination bits like etcd, fleet, and so on.
There's CoreOS the OS and there's CoreOS the project. The OS is just a self-updating barebones Linux distro built for hosting Docker containers.