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

Docker Considered Harmful (2016)

catern.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 188 posts

Re: Docker Considered Harmful (2016)

#81

Post by andrewguenther »

geggam wrote: post #71
jonnycoder wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This right here. Can confirm, the #1 benefit of using Docker is that 98% of our "Ops" issues has gone away.

No they haven't. They are lurking around the corner waiting to hit you when you least expect it. The mugging you are about to get is what your ops team has had and are trying to prevent. Enjoy the learnings...

Three years in and this hasn't happened. Our dev team also does ops and we've found that Docker has improved things markedly. But feel free to keep spreading your FUD.

Re: Docker Considered Harmful (2016)

#83

Post by ecnahc515 »

geggam wrote: post #63
majewsky wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bonus round: > For most purposes, the main interesting thing that Docker containers provide is isolated networking. [...] What else prevents applications from using ports? The firewall that you already have installed on your server. Again, pointless abstraction to address already-solved problems. Comically missing the point.

until you realize the firewall is the same iptables that you use to isolate the network in docker containers

Not at all. IP tables is used to route traffic between containers, yes, but the isolation is done by network namespaces.

Re: Docker Considered Harmful (2016)

#84

Post by geggam »

andrewguenther wrote: post #81
geggam wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they haven't. They are lurking around the corner waiting to hit you when you least expect it. The mugging you are about to get is what your ops team has had and are trying to prevent. Enjoy the learnings...

Three years in and this hasn't happened. Our dev team also does ops and we've found that Docker has improved things markedly. But feel free to keep spreading your FUD.

Curious... What is your setup ?

AWS ? GCP ? ... managed k8s or you running it ?

Outsourcing your operations and pretending the problem is cured by docker is just a bit silly.

Re: Docker Considered Harmful (2016)

#85

Post by true_tuna »

andrewguenther wrote: post #81
geggam wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they haven't. They are lurking around the corner waiting to hit you when you least expect it. The mugging you are about to get is what your ops team has had and are trying to prevent. Enjoy the learnings...

Three years in and this hasn't happened. Our dev team also does ops and we've found that Docker has improved things markedly. But feel free to keep spreading your FUD.

I’d love for this to be true. Have you had anyone come in and do an audit? I find crazy stuff when I show up at No Ops shops and poke around.

Re: Docker Considered Harmful (2016)

#86

Post by drc0 »

ghshephard wrote: post #24

Docker by itself probably doesn't make any sense to an engineer until they get a chance to see kubernetes in action. There is nothing more awesome than seeing, on the fly, your worker pool being scaled out by 100x by nothing more than kubectl --context k8s-uw1a-gcp -n customerx scale deploy someapp_worker --replicas 100 to make you appreciate what docker can do for you.

ok but here you are really advocating kubernetes, not docker.

Re: Docker Considered Harmful (2016)

#87

Post by true_tuna »

jonnycoder wrote: post #62
ravenstine wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, your ops team can put together a bunch of stuff manually. And then you can create a bunch of extra stuff that makes it easier for development to handle all of that inside virtual machines, and get the network bridging between those apps and the host machine working properly, and all that fun stuff. I think this is one of the biggest reasons people use Docker, although they tend to forget to mention it since i…

This right here. Can confirm, the #1 benefit of using Docker is that 98% of our "Ops" issues has gone away.

Where do you run your containers?

Re: Docker Considered Harmful (2016)

#88

Post by bunderbunder »

geggam wrote: post #71
jonnycoder wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This right here. Can confirm, the #1 benefit of using Docker is that 98% of our "Ops" issues has gone away.

No they haven't. They are lurking around the corner waiting to hit you when you least expect it. The mugging you are about to get is what your ops team has had and are trying to prevent. Enjoy the learnings...

There is only one possible place where this can really grow to be that kind of a problem: It's when ops isn't being involved.

(And if the relationship between development and ops has broken down to the point that each one is trying to work around rather than with each other, you're already screwed. The rest is just details.)

If ops is involved, then there's no real reason they can't take charge of making sure that anything that is running in production is being built up from minimal images where they can keep track of the technology stack and all the different versions of xyz lib that are running in production. They've just got to do it using a different tool chain.

And if ops isn't involved, I'm not sure how different this really is from the typical status quo, which involves unquestioningly running whatever uberjar full of unknown (to ops) 3rd-party packages that probably have their versions being selected using Maven's default version conflict resolution strategy, so that nobody, not even dev, really knows what exactly is running in production.

Re: Docker Considered Harmful (2016)

#90

Post by geggam »

true_tuna wrote: post #85
andrewguenther wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three years in and this hasn't happened. Our dev team also does ops and we've found that Docker has improved things markedly. But feel free to keep spreading your FUD.

I’d love for this to be true. Have you had anyone come in and do an audit? I find crazy stuff when I show up at No Ops shops and poke around.

Last year we had a $NAME come for an audit. Well known company and they did not know how to audit inside containers.

Still not sure how a corporation who runs RHEL contractually is able to use alpine and ubuntu based containers but it happens.

I dont work there anymore and I am glad because when the containers finally do get an audit and the customer is told for X years they havent been in compliance.... well..

Post reply on HN