111–120 of 148 posts
REALLY looking forward to this. We've needed container style deployments on Windows forever. This is actually going to make my life better...at least this part, anyway.
Imagine what switching to linux could do for you.
C'mon, kids. It's not all rails apps from your MacBooks out there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
THE STORY OF THE CONTAINER GOLDRUSH As seen by a verbose, presumptuous 22 year old. OPEN SOURCE MOVEMENT lays foundation for containerization: - linux kernel gains mainstream adoption, becomes standardized across distributions - kernel matures to support containerization (i.e., namespacing critical OS operations) - lxc project takes advantage of kernel support, builds tooling around namespace containerization DOCKER…
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.
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you apply security updates to the dependencies?
You generate a fresh build with the updated libraries.
EDIT: To give you a chance to catch those regressions, at least.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't know much about the container scene. I thought they were literally just virtual machines, with presumably some standardized way of spinning them up programmatically. Maybe someone can correct me. Close but containers share the same kernel. It allows them to do many things more efficiently but it's not a straight up virtual machine.
To build on this, containerized apps have less overhead than a full on virtual machine, since the binaries aren't replicated every time. Like, de-dupe for your VMs, to use a weak analogy. However, because they all share the same kernel, you're limited to a single flavor of containers per host. So a host can provide for all windows apps, or all linux apps, but not a mix. It makes the most sense when you have a need fo…
While this is true I feel like at some point in the future we're going to be able to mix both. I've seen some rough ideas as to how it could happen but they sounded almost impossible to pull off. Still, if we had a way to mix containers it would be absolutely amazing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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'.
For the tech enthusiast and the visionaries, you are correct; It is a very viable technology. However the majority of people that deploy software are rather conservative and unless they see a market leader such as Microsoft with a solution they don't deem the technology safe to use. This is well documented in a lot of literature like Crossing the Chasm but can be observed frequently if you work at a larger non-tech o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It was not an extremely functional product. It was largely there to get government contracts where one of the requirements was POSIX conformance, even if they weren't using it.
Imagining they had first-class support for it (a major undertaking, I'd guess, but anyway) how many people would use it? I'd guess it'd be about the same people who use Cygwin now.
Will this technology allow running a POSIX kernel alongside like in a VM? Or will these Containers be limited to Windows server software?
Containerisation is a new term for OS-level virtualisation. So in a current meaning of virtualisation, no. It will not let you put a Linux container on a Windows kernel. You could run a VM on Hyper-V VMs, and presumably it will respond to the Docker API, but that just means it's a VM.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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'.
BSD had jails for well over a decade before Linux containerization took off; Microsoft entering the space could very well be good for all participants. A rising tide, etc.