11–20 of 34 posts
I would much rather go with dockerhub than use this. Egress pricing sucks. I'd rather have it from docker, who made the tool for my containers, than google.
What about docker 1.6, with image and container labels? Will Google keep this up to date?
Is this specifically aimed at compute cloud users for faster deploys? I would much rather go with dockerhub than use this. Egress pricing sucks. I'd rather have it from docker, who made the tool for my containers, than google. What about docker 1.6, with image and container labels? Will Google keep this up to date?
Interesting take on things. It's mostly contributions from Google that made containers viable in the first place.
Is this specifically aimed at compute cloud users for faster deploys? I would much rather go with dockerhub than use this. Egress pricing sucks. I'd rather have it from docker, who made the tool for my containers, than google. What about docker 1.6, with image and container labels? Will Google keep this up to date?
>I'd rather have it from docker, who made the tool for my containers, than google. Interesting take on things. It's mostly contributions from Google that made containers viable in the first place.
While Google made containers possible I think Docker made them happen. I can't imagine committing an LXC container and pushing it to a repo if it weren't for docker. Nor would I want to manage raw networking in LXC. Nor sharing of filesystems.
>Pricing >During the beta period you will be charged only for the Google Cloud Storage storage and network egress consumed by your Docker images. Dammit google, this is not how you price things. Especially when people have been burned by price jumps on your service before. I don't know why i'd bother integrating with a service when I have no idea what the cost will be.
> Dammit google, this is not how you price things. It actually is the way Google quite often prices things. > I don't know why i'd bother integrating with a service when I have no idea what the cost will be. Then maybe a pre-release service for which Google has not yet developed the experience with usage patterns that will let it price the service appropriately isn't for you. But that's okay, its not intended for eve…
> It actually is the way Google quite often prices things.
True, that doesn't mean it's a good idea.
> maybe a pre-release service (...)
Also true.
Aweosme, I can't wait till they pull the plug out from under me.
I imagine that wouldn't be very likely in this case—this is much less like Google's usual "let's build some random thing and see if customers like it", and instead very much in the vein of the way Amazon treats AWS: as a set of infrastructure services they themselves consume, but also happen to expose to the public. Now, they might make it private in the future, but as long as Google are using containers for everythi…
Reference? I've heard (unsubstantiated but believable) rumors that the servers and system that run the amazon website are rather different from the servers and system they sell the rest of us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I'd rather have it from docker, who made the tool for my containers, than google. Interesting take on things. It's mostly contributions from Google that made containers viable in the first place.
True that, the original LXC library was Google. Then Docker wrote their own implementation called libcontainer (and systemd-nspawn popped about). While Google made containers possible I think Docker made them happen. I can't imagine committing an LXC container and pushing it to a repo if it weren't for docker. Nor would I want to manage raw networking in LXC. Nor sharing of filesystems.
Aweosme, I can't wait till they pull the plug out from under me.
I imagine that wouldn't be very likely in this case—this is much less like Google's usual "let's build some random thing and see if customers like it", and instead very much in the vein of the way Amazon treats AWS: as a set of infrastructure services they themselves consume, but also happen to expose to the public. Now, they might make it private in the future, but as long as Google are using containers for everythi…
>Pricing >During the beta period you will be charged only for the Google Cloud Storage storage and network egress consumed by your Docker images. Dammit google, this is not how you price things. Especially when people have been burned by price jumps on your service before. I don't know why i'd bother integrating with a service when I have no idea what the cost will be.
Is there any guarantee the cost will be a linear function of those things? Quadratic? Quartic? Exponential?
Fine print, fine print everywhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I imagine that wouldn't be very likely in this case—this is much less like Google's usual "let's build some random thing and see if customers like it", and instead very much in the vein of the way Amazon treats AWS: as a set of infrastructure services they themselves consume, but also happen to expose to the public. Now, they might make it private in the future, but as long as Google are using containers for everythi…
> very much in the vein of the way Amazon treats AWS: as a set of infrastructure services they themselves consume, but also happen to expose to the public. Reference? I've heard (unsubstantiated but believable) rumors that the servers and system that run the amazon website are rather different from the servers and system they sell the rest of us.