App Container and Docker • Hacker News Board

Re: App Container and Docker

#61

Post by dmourati » Sun, Feb 15, 2015, 12:45 AM UTC

eropple wrote: post #59

dmourati wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are all great but I get the most of the same benefits from VMs and many more: fresh state/ no performance penalty (AMI+autoscaling) Document dependencies, not reinvent (Packer file) Sandboxing (same) Always use same standard port (easier with VMs as 1:1 map) I know most people think that containers/docker/whatever new stack does these things better and they may be right. The benefits however don't outweigh the…

I run containers in Amazon. Not using their service, because their service is silly, but on Mesos. I am not locked into a 1:1 tenancy between applications and instances (though I could have it if I wanted). Multitenancy is trivial. I have the ability to spin up new instances of my applications to combat spike loads or instance failures in single-digit seconds rather than in minutes. My developers can run every contai…

Thanks for the reply.

Re: App Container and Docker

#62

Post by m_mueller » Sun, Feb 15, 2015, 1:52 AM UTC

dmourati wrote: post #54

m_mueller wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deploying to a cleanly defined fresh state without paying any performance penalty. Documenting your dependencies by writing the deployment script (=Dockerfile) and not having to reinvent the wheel everytime (image inheritance). Sandboxing linux applications without paying any performance penalty. Creating a PaaS where your services internally always see the same standard port, externally they're linked together throu…

These are all great but I get the most of the same benefits from VMs and many more: fresh state/ no performance penalty (AMI+autoscaling) Document dependencies, not reinvent (Packer file) Sandboxing (same) Always use same standard port (easier with VMs as 1:1 map) I know most people think that containers/docker/whatever new stack does these things better and they may be right. The benefits however don't outweigh the…

The one thing I don't believe you, is that you don't have a performance penalty. If you compare a bare metal machine running VMs with a bare metal machine running containers, there will always be a performance penalty for the VMs - they are more heavyweight by definition by running an additional kernel for each VM. Even assuming CPU doesn't get a hit at all, it still incurs memory and diskspace penalties. As an effect, from an IaaS POV, a container can be made available cheaper than a VM, and you can think much less about using them from a performance point of view - does it make sense logically or from a security standpoint? -> use it.

Re: App Container and Docker

#63

Post by dkarapetyan » Sun, Feb 15, 2015, 10:54 PM UTC

vidarh wrote: post #51

dkarapetyan wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ya, the messaging is starting to get really confusing. If the container formats really are that similar then there is no point in two parallel implementations, either augment docker containers or app containers. Doing both at the same time is just silly since from the looks of it they are going to converge on the same format anyway.

Basically App Containers is about laying down the gauntlet for Docker because the changes they are asking for are/were unlikely to be accepted without backing them up with the pressure of facing a competing project if they're not. The federated nature of image identity that CoreOS is pushing for is a direct challenge to the special status that Docker has given index.docker.io, and that they have been strongly resisti…

Right, in which case this should be the messaging instead of "Look guys docker can run ACI images". Why waste effort on interoperability if the end game is federated image identities? Pour all engineering resources into making that happen instead of silly patches for interop since that can always happen later.

Re: App Container and Docker

#64

Post by tbatchelli » Tue, Feb 17, 2015, 5:28 AM UTC

eropple wrote: post #58

tbatchelli wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Competition is benefitting users and producing some relative waste of resources on each company. We are benefitting because at the end of the day the container world will be more open. But I think that this VC-backed model might not be beneficial for OS as a business in the mid-long term. The race to $0 is greatly accelerated.

Do you think that the VC-backed model is good for open-source as an ecosystem, even if not a business? Because, watching the growth of Docker and CoreOS, I'm starting to wonder if it isn't just a tire fire for us at every level.

Might send Open Source back to how it was pre-Red Hat. Whether that's good or bad, I don't know.