When can we start to use this service?
AWS EC2 Container Service
31–40 of 90 posts
Re: AWS EC2 Container Service
#32Security-wise, if I understand correctly, this is a very interesting offering. 1. The containers live on "your" VMs so you get the isolation of a virtual machine and do not worry about the other tenants' containers. 2. The VMs are part of a "private cloud", i.e., the internal network is not accessible by other tenants' VMs and containers. #2 is what worried me the most in other container service offerings. It's easy…
[deleted]
Re: AWS EC2 Container Service
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
No, Docker is not build on lxd. It used to be built on lxC, which is now an optional backend. The grand-parent is correct that lxd is a newly introduced competitor to Docker. I won't comment on whether it's good or bad, but it's an objective fact that canonical decided to reimplement what Docker does rather than contribute to it.
Don't worry Solomon, we still love Docker and will continue to use it :)
That being said, if they do somehow manage to get hardware assisted containment for containers, I see it as a no-brainer for docker to adopt it as soon as it is reasonably possible. Are there any plans (that you can speak of) regarding something like this, or are you waiting for LXD to be more than vaporware at this point?
Re: AWS EC2 Container Service
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
No, Docker is not build on lxd. It used to be built on lxC, which is now an optional backend. The grand-parent is correct that lxd is a newly introduced competitor to Docker. I won't comment on whether it's good or bad, but it's an objective fact that canonical decided to reimplement what Docker does rather than contribute to it.
I'm confused...
Docker Inc CEO Ben Golub:
Current meme gets it wrong. Ubuntu lxd is complementary, not
@docker replacement. Joyent brings Docker to SmartOS.
http://zd.net/1uB3Aly
Re: AWS EC2 Container Service
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
No, Docker is not build on lxd. It used to be built on lxC, which is now an optional backend. The grand-parent is correct that lxd is a newly introduced competitor to Docker. I won't comment on whether it's good or bad, but it's an objective fact that canonical decided to reimplement what Docker does rather than contribute to it.
> it's an objective fact that canonical decided to reimplement
> what Docker does rather than contribute to it.
Re: AWS EC2 Container Service
#36I'm disappointed that this requires an invite, particularly so close after Container Engine which I was able to try out immediately while still watching Cloud Platform Live the other day. Is this typical for new AWS offerings? It makes me wonder if it's something that truly isn't ready for prime time, but is being rushed / forced by the mounting Docker hype and GKE announcement.
Considering they've been tweeting about it [1] since before their competitors announced things I'd say it's unlikely to be a "response". It's far more likely that Docker has now been out long enough for the various providers to build services around it. AWS already had some docker support built in in April [2]. It's also pretty common to release services as previews. GCE lists theirs as an Alpha quality product. [1]…
Given that kubernetes (the project behind GCE) was open sourced in early June, I hardly think a tweet from a week and a half ago shows it's not a response to Google.
Re: AWS EC2 Container Service
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
Incorrect, docker is built ontop of Linux kernel namespaces and cgroups. The first backend was LXC (notice the C and not D). The current backend is libcontainer, which is a native golang re-implementation (more or less) of LXC. There is a docker backend for LXC, but it is not the default and is likely not used super heavily. Note that there isn't really a Linux kernel feature called LXC. The LXC userspace just ties a…
Is there a point-by-point (and detailed) comparison somewhere between FreeBSD jail and LXC (or libcontainer) ... it would be very helpful to see that comparison.
Re: AWS EC2 Container Service
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering they've been tweeting about it [1] since before their competitors announced things I'd say it's unlikely to be a "response". It's far more likely that Docker has now been out long enough for the various providers to build services around it. AWS already had some docker support built in in April [2]. It's also pretty common to release services as previews. GCE lists theirs as an Alpha quality product. [1]…
Given that kubernetes (the project behind GCE) was open sourced in early June, I hardly think a tweet from a week and a half ago shows it's not a response to Google.
He also mentions the elastic beanstalk support for Docker from April. It's quite obvious that everyone has been working on Docker support for a while now anyway.
Re: AWS EC2 Container Service
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, Docker is not build on lxd. It used to be built on lxC, which is now an optional backend. The grand-parent is correct that lxd is a newly introduced competitor to Docker. I won't comment on whether it's good or bad, but it's an objective fact that canonical decided to reimplement what Docker does rather than contribute to it.
> it's an objective fact that canonical decided to reimplement > what Docker does rather than contribute to it. What was the reason that Docker reimplemented much of LXC rather than contribute patches upstream? Latest LXC supports features that Docker's reimplementation doesn't, and it seems likely to get further ahead feature-wise now that Ubuntu is pouring more resources into LXC/LXD.
You forgot to quote the part where I said "I won't comment on whether it's good or bad".
Canonical doesn't need to justify itself to me, no more than the Docker maintainers need to justify themselves to you. It's just how open-source works: you weigh the pros and cons of re-using vs re-implementing, make a decision, and see if the community follows you. In the case of Docker, the community followed. In the case of lxd, I guess we'll see. Either way, more choice and competition means the user wins.
Re: AWS EC2 Container Service
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, Docker is not build on lxd. It used to be built on lxC, which is now an optional backend. The grand-parent is correct that lxd is a newly introduced competitor to Docker. I won't comment on whether it's good or bad, but it's an objective fact that canonical decided to reimplement what Docker does rather than contribute to it.
Don't worry Solomon, we still love Docker and will continue to use it :) That being said, if they do somehow manage to get hardware assisted containment for containers, I see it as a no-brainer for docker to adopt it as soon as it is reasonably possible. Are there any plans (that you can speak of) regarding something like this, or are you waiting for LXD to be more than vaporware at this point?
I can say that there are employees of major silicon companies already working on contributing all of this to upstream Docker. I was shown a real proof of concept already, it's very promising and not at all vaporware :)