Anyone else find the Docker logo extremely adorable? I know nothing about it but I smile every time I see that happy little barge-whale.
Now check out the narwhale: http://socketplane.io/
The Docker logo is cute because it isn't trying to be cute.
RancherOS: An OS for Docker Containers
31–40 of 66 posts
Re: RancherOS: An OS for Docker Containers
#32That name, a dig at servers as "cattle vs pets" i take it?
Re: RancherOS: An OS for Docker Containers
#33Docker 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).
From a security perspective, not really, the alternative is run Docker as root. Perhaps it is from a system stability perspective though?
Re: RancherOS: An OS for Docker Containers
#34I've been using Docker since forever and I think I grasp the architecture here.
But, my question is, what does this bring to the table that isn't possible with Docker + Machine + Swarm?
That's a super important question to ask, because adding another layer to deployments is not something people are wont to do to a system (Docker) that's supposed to put the simplicity back into deployments. Also, since this isn't under Docker Inc.'s umbrella people would be right to be cautious depending on it lest it die, whether that's fair or not.
I don't use CoreOS but I get it: it offers orchestration whistles that solve some people's problems. I also don't use but I understand PaaSes like Flynn: they're solving problems at a completely different layer and their ties to Docker are incidental.
But this, the primary touted advantage seems to be that it's a slim Docker image. For me (and I imagine others) that is a solved problem with Machine and/or boot2docker. On top of not imposing any new overarching architecture to learn, those tools are already widely deployed, supported, and trusted, and have the huge unfair advantage of being blessed by Docker core.
And if you really want to run Docker in Docker, that's been supported for a very long time, and you get that for free without installing anything.
So I'm at a loss to think of a case I'd advise someone to reach for this. Is there something I'm missing?
Re: RancherOS: An OS for Docker Containers
#35How you upgrade system docker when it is PID 1 ?
Does the machine has to be rebooted?
Re: RancherOS: An OS for Docker Containers
#36"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.
In my experience it works, but is a mess. You end up with really crazy unit files that aren't actually managing the docker daemon, they're managing the docker client. CoreOS created Rocket in part because the match between docker and systemd is so bad. Rancher seems to be going in the other direction by making Docker support fully native. I do wonder how much this really buys you over a higher level framework like Mesos or Kubernetes though.
You can see Darren's discussion of these issues here: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/coreos-dev/wf7G6rA7Bf4...
Re: RancherOS: An OS for Docker Containers
#37I've used coreos and configuring it into clusters was over complicated. So much so that I switched back to ubuntu. Does anyone know how RancherOS compares?
Re: RancherOS: An OS for Docker Containers
#38Quote: "At 20MB, RancherOS is two orders of magnitude smaller than a typical Linux distribution, and an order of magnitude smaller than even other minimalist Linux distributions."
This claim is incorrect. Linux kernels can actually be as small as around 2 MB. The rest of a working Linux system (GNU, GUI etc.) does not belong to the kernel.
http://superuser.com/questions/370586/how-can-a-linux-kernel...
A Debian Linux distribution (kernel + stuff) can run in just 32 MB. For instance:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1522146/minimum-configura...
Quote: "I've used a TS-7200 for about five years to run a web server and mail server, using Debian GNU Linux. It is 200 MHz and has 32 MB of RAM, and is quite adequate for these tasks. It has serial port built in. It's based on a ARM920T."
Re: RancherOS: An OS for Docker Containers
#39Curious 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…
Many people already have run X in a container with no trouble. They often just vnc it out.
The hard part is not running X, but running X and having it display to your hardware. This is a massive distinction. You need to passthrough your graphics device so that X can write to its framebuffer and all that bizzazz, and that's the question you really should be asking. "How do I pass my graphics device / display device into a container".
Re: RancherOS: An OS for Docker Containers
#40Quote: "At 20MB, RancherOS is two orders of magnitude smaller than a typical Linux distribution, and an order of magnitude smaller than even other minimalist Linux distributions." This claim is incorrect. Linux kernels can actually be as small as around 2 MB. The rest of a working Linux system (GNU, GUI etc.) does not belong to the kernel. http://superuser.com/questions/370586/how-can-a-linux-kernel... A Debian Linux…
Well, boot2docker is 24mb and is based on Tiny Core Linux, which is 9mb.
So yeah, not true at all.