Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Docker for Mac Beta Review

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 367 posts

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#61

Post by tln »

dandandan wrote: post #43
tln wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am in the same boat. I'm actually holding up a wider scope for Docker deployment within our organization until we can use Docker for Mac.

Why does needing to use docker-machine prevent you from rolling out docker within your org?

I would prefer to ensure my colleagues go through one transition in their developer setup, rather than two.

The vagrant-based docker machine system needs some work to be a smooth experience, such as NFS workarounds for shared file system performance, file watching and so on.

This is hopefully avoidable in Docker for Mac!

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#62

Post by gschrader »

justinhj wrote: post #2

Good review. One thing mentioned is that the author was able to remove Kitematic amongst other things. Kitematic is a GUI for Docker. There is currently no replacement for it.

I was under the assumption that Kitematic wouldn't work with the beta but low and behold it does. I'm not sure what it will do if you have the old Docker toolbox installed at the same time however.

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#63

Post by bstx »

xienze wrote: post #12
Matt3o12_ wrote: post #4

Why do people value that so much? I really don't care if a tiny VMis running in the background. Also, running that VM gives me more confidence that it will also run on the production machine (since they use the same kernel and the same docker version). The only problem I had with docker was that I did not use to support shared volumes that are outside the home folder on Mac (I think they changed that now, but I'm not…

Running a VM means you have to allocate X amount of RAM regardless if how much is actually needed by the containerized processes.

Nope, VMs are demand paged like any other process.

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#64

Post by so0k »

tacos wrote: post #3

This "review" is the technical equivalent of a YouTube unboxing video. Screenshot, screenshot, something I already knew from reading the press release, screenshot, platitude, one big technical error in the conclusion, and done. If it really worked (especially on Windows) Docker would post the binaries instead of treating this like Wonka Golden Tickets. Love Docker, am actually waiting to be approved so I can get to b…

if you want a more technical review of the Windows beta, read this: http://docker-saigon.github.io/post/Docker-Beta/

But note that beta 8 was released a few days after that review and already introduced some changes.

Also, for the Windows beta, it very much is still a beta.

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#66

Post by wichsen »

Question: Is this compatible with OS X 10.9.x or earlier? Or is it only for the latest pieces of shit that are 10.10/10.11?

edit thanks for the correction netheril96!

I'm curious about the state of compatibility because I've drawn a line in the sand -- and refuse to upgrade from 10.9 (since many things seem to be getting only worse and less stable in MAC OS land :).

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#67

Post by netheril96 »

wichsen wrote: post #66

Question: Is this compatible with OS X 10.9.x or earlier? Or is it only for the latest pieces of shit that are 10.10/10.11? edit thanks for the correction netheril96! I'm curious about the state of compatibility because I've drawn a line in the sand -- and refuse to upgrade from 10.9 (since many things seem to be getting only worse and less stable in MAC OS land :).

The latest piece is 10.11.

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#68

Post by molecule »

djs55 wrote: post #55
bryanh wrote: post #31

I've noticed some pretty extreme performance penalties with Docker for Mac. Wherein VirtualBox would spin I'm going to guess it'll get better in time. It would be nice to get some insight into just what is burning CPU cycles. The experience besides that was really top notch IMO.

(I work for Docker on Docker for Mac) Our approach is to focus on functionality and correctness first, and then improve performance over time. We're building up a suite of performance benchmarks to help us track progress-- are there particular benchmarks that you would recommend we add? I'll certainly add "CPU load while idling" to the list.

> Our approach is to focus on functionality and correctness first, and then improve performance over time.

Just my two cents: I think that the interface and features are excellent and a joy to use, but performance was a show-stopper that forced me to quit using the Beta for Rails-application development:

- a simple request that took ~1/3 of a second using VirtualBox and Docker Machine took six seconds on Docker for Mac - a more complex request went from one second to twelve seconds

I didn't have a chance to dig into it, but I would guess that it has something to do w/ osxfs and the many files that Rails loads, as it reminded me of the difference between using sharing files via VirtualBox's own file sharing vs. NFS, the latter being a significant improvement.

Re: Docker for Mac Beta Review

#69

Post by cstrahan »

smegel wrote: post #32

So it uses xhyve...does this mean Docker runs up a full hypervisor per Docker process you run? That seems a bit excessive.

I would bet money that it does not. The Virtualbox based solutions all create one VM and run all containers there -- why would they stop doing that just because they're using a different means of virtualization?
Post reply on HN