TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Why Docker Is Not Yet Succeeding Widely in Production

502 pointsby PolandKidalmost 10 years ago

48 comments

minimaxiralmost 10 years ago
While the article goes into the more technical reasons for not using Docker in production, the practical reason &quot;Why Docker Is Not Yet Succeeding Widely in Production&quot; is that <i>if it ain&#x27;t broke, don&#x27;t fix it.</i> The advantages of Docker do not necessarily outweigh the opportunity cost of rewriting the startup&#x27;s entire infrastructure.<p>Docker will likely be more prevalent in a few years with startups who have built their infrastructure form the ground up.
评论 #9962743 未加载
评论 #9962648 未加载
评论 #9963242 未加载
评论 #9962928 未加载
评论 #9961898 未加载
评论 #9965555 未加载
评论 #9964986 未加载
therealmarvalmost 10 years ago
I would be sold on Docker if that would be easy. I have e.g. this stack:<p>- 1 webserver&#x2F;proxy, let&#x27;s say nginx<p>- 1 simple Rest API server, let&#x27;s say in flask<p>- 1 database, let&#x27;s say PostgreSQL<p>and I want to connect all 3 things and I want to preserve logs for the whole time and preserve the state of the database (of course). Also not to forget make all bulletproof for the Internet.<p>And here all sorts of problems arise: What underlying OS, how to connect this containers, how to preserve state of my database and logs (it&#x27;s not trivial as the article proofs again). So overall Docker makes life not easier on this simple use-case, it makes life (of the sysadmin) more complicated.
评论 #9962601 未加载
评论 #9962182 未加载
评论 #9964099 未加载
评论 #9961949 未加载
评论 #9962951 未加载
评论 #9964163 未加载
评论 #9961961 未加载
评论 #9962430 未加载
iamleppertalmost 10 years ago
I&#x27;ve said it before and I&#x27;ll say it again: pre-mature infrastructure optimization is the root of all evil.<p>Do me a favor and if you got a startup, stay clear of all this. Everyone wants to reinvent their own flavor of heroku and make your deployment and build pipeline god-awful complex. Their tool of choice? Docker.<p>Before you know it you&#x27;ll be swimming in containers upon containers. Containers will save us, they&#x27;ll cry! Meanwhile you have 0 rows of data before you&#x27;ve paid them their first month&#x27;s salary and have spent time on solving problems of scale you&#x27;ll never have.<p>Focus on your product, outsource the rest. And leave customized docker setups to mid-stage startups and big corps who already have these problems, or at least the money and people to toil on them. Not everything needs to be a container! And most companies are not and will never be Google!!
评论 #9965725 未加载
评论 #9966013 未加载
评论 #9966581 未加载
评论 #9965904 未加载
评论 #9965642 未加载
rubiquityalmost 10 years ago
I think the reason is because the tooling and the companies (CoreOS, Joyent, Weave, etc.) building all of the tools, are only focusing on grabbing Fortune 500 customers. Nobody is building Docker tools for the &quot;Blue Collar Apps&quot; of the world. And those companies might be completely justified because the benefits of Docker versus Amazon AMIs&#x2F;RPMs&#x2F;DEBs&#x2F;etc. aren&#x27;t that big enough to make us go crazy for Docker and switch everything over and fork over cash to these companies.<p>If I have less than 50 (maybe even 100) EC2 instances for my applications there is no way in hell I am going to run 3 service discovery instances, a few container scheduler instances and so on and so forth.
评论 #9962548 未加载
评论 #9964841 未加载
评论 #9966965 未加载
filereaperalmost 10 years ago
I think Simon nailed it with the points under this heading &quot;Reliance on edgy kernel features&quot;<p>Officially Docker is only supported on RHEL 7 and up, and most systems I&#x27;ve seen are still on RHEL6.<p>I think its just a matter of time before Docker goes into Production, where I&#x27;m working we&#x27;re seriously looking at &quot;Dockerizing&quot; lots of things, but OS support keeps popping up.
评论 #9961853 未加载
评论 #9966781 未加载
geerlingguyalmost 10 years ago
Some of the points mentioned in the article are in my top hitlist (for decidedly smaller production infrastructure than Shopify): Image building, Logging, Secrets, and Filesystems.<p>But really, the most painful aspect of using Docker in production, at least in environments where you need multiple physical servers (or VMs) is overall orchestration of the containers, and networking between them.<p>Things are much better today than they were a year (or 6 months!) ago... but these are two parts of Docker configuration that take the longest to get right.<p>For orchestration: there are currently at least a dozen different ways to manage containers on multiple servers, and a few seem to be gaining more steam, but it feels much like the JS frameworks era, where there&#x27;s a new orchestration tool every week: flynn, deis, coreos, mesos, serf, fleet, kubernetes, atomic, machine&#x2F;swarm&#x2F;compose, openstack, etc. How does one keep up with all these? Not to mention all the other tooling in software like Ansible, Chef, etc.<p>For networking: if you&#x27;re running all your containers on one VM (as most developers do), it&#x27;s not a big deal. But if you need containers on multiple servers, you not only have to deal with the servers&#x27; configuration, provisioning, and networking, but also the containers inside, and getting them to play nicely through the servers&#x27; networks. It&#x27;s akin to running multiple VMs on one physical machine, but without using tools like VMWare or VirtualBox to manage the networking aspects.<p>Networking is challenging, but at least we have a lot of experience with VMs, which are conceptually similar. Orchestration may take more time to nail down and standardize.
评论 #9961875 未加载
评论 #9962416 未加载
zaargyalmost 10 years ago
TL;DR It&#x27;s too damn complicated if you&#x27;re not Google&#x2F;Twitter&#x2F;Netflix. Most people would be fine just deploying OS packages and keeping their stacks as simple as possible.
评论 #9962410 未加载
评论 #9962246 未加载
评论 #9962029 未加载
评论 #9963063 未加载
评论 #9962428 未加载
评论 #9964397 未加载
评论 #9962906 未加载
saosebastiaoalmost 10 years ago
I&#x27;m pretty disillusioned with docker so far. Haven&#x27;t put in too much time with it, but the little time I have put into it has produced nothing of value. I&#x27;m surprised we&#x27;re still talking about it to be honest, with so much progress in unikernels like OSv, HalVM, Mirage, and Ling.<p>In the two hours I&#x27;ve spent with OSv, I&#x27;ve gotten <i>much</i> lighter weight VMs that boot my large scala app extremely quickly (a few seconds, max), with less configuration and more predictable performance.
technofiendalmost 10 years ago
Just my personal opinion but Docker still reflects the developer-centric culture that inspired it and by that I mean security is still getting more mature but isn&#x27;t quite there yet.<p>For instance there&#x27;s still work being done to add native PAM and by extension Kerberos support, and the daemon runs as root, thus requiring extra caution about who may run docker commands.<p>If you&#x27;re (for example) in an enterprise where developers may never have root access under any circumstances, you end up with a chicken and egg scenario: if developers don&#x27;t have the ability to test container creation (because doing so might grant them root access in a container), who does?
评论 #9963262 未加载
benjaminwoottonalmost 10 years ago
&quot;However, for many production users today, the pros do not outweigh the cons. Docker has done fantastically well at making containers appeal to developers for development, testing and CI environments—however, it has yet to disrupt production.&quot;<p>I keep hearing about people putting Docker in dev and test environments and not production. This use case makes no sense to me as you would throw away the entire point of containers and have a wildly inconsistent path to production.
评论 #9962754 未加载
评论 #9962477 未加载
评论 #9963389 未加载
limaoscarjulietalmost 10 years ago
I work in a place which, in order to solve the dependency nightmares, had some highly paid people do magic tricks manually in order to save the day... every day. Every upgrade was hell. Yes, we have Director of Upgrades.<p>Simple tools (rpm + yum + docker) allowed us to replace these people with a simple shell script. Literally.<p>I agree with the article Docker is missing some things. Two that I would like to see: - Auto cleanup - Clean and easy proxying
DannoHungalmost 10 years ago
Hey, cool, trough of disillusionment!<p>That means we&#x27;re like a year away from it being boring and just working, right?
scurvyalmost 10 years ago
I still haven&#x27;t been sold on Docker. Why would an otherwise competent company that runs things just fine, ditch it all and adopt Docker? Just because it&#x27;s the shiny new thing? What do we actually gain here in production?
评论 #9961956 未加载
评论 #9965808 未加载
评论 #9961927 未加载
AaronFrielalmost 10 years ago
I thought the obvious reason was storage. I don&#x27;t see it mentioned here, but storage is a huge pain point. How do you store your critical data &quot;with Docker&quot; is a labyrinthine set of steps.<p>Docker&#x27;s answer to storage so far has been &quot;don&#x27;t use Docker&quot;. That&#x27;s their answer. Use volumes to map some other storage, but then you have to have some way of mapping storage to containers outside of Docker. Now you&#x27;re really stuck.<p>Containers are awesome, but unless your product doesn&#x27;t do work, you&#x27;ll need to store data at some point. And that&#x27;s when the magic stops.
x5n1almost 10 years ago
This tutorial shows how to deploy a micro docker container with WordPress. Each microcontainer has its own instance of Nginx and PHP-FPM. An Nginx server as a proxy sits on the front end serving connections to one or more sites hosted in the containers. It uses Alpine Linux and persists all data on the host&#x27;s file system. The logging is also available on the host system. The benefit of doing it this way is that each site sits in its own container, so if it is compromised, no harm comes to any other site or services running on the host system.<p>It also does not link containers, instead opting to attach the database to the first IP address of the network Docker sets up, thereby avoiding the need for complicated service discovery. It also includes instructions on how to deploy Redis on the same box and use that with WordPress. Also includes instructions on how to do SSL for each site. It&#x27;s being used in production.<p><a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dockerwordpress.com&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dockerwordpress.com&#x2F;</a>
amouatalmost 10 years ago
For a forum like this, it should go without saying that many of these problems are really opportunities for successful businesses.<p>Containers are only going to grow in uptake; companies like Weave and ClusterHQ have a very bright future if they can solve real pain points like the ones in this article.
mariusmgalmost 10 years ago
Maybe because Docker isn&#x27;t really needed ?<p>I mean if your app needs the entire fucking OS to provide isolation from other apps, then you are clearly doing it wrong.
评论 #9963185 未加载
评论 #9965750 未加载
评论 #9962456 未加载
naileralmost 10 years ago
The security question (it&#x27;s possible to break out of containers) isn&#x27;t solved, and the workaround (use VMs) eliminates many of the advantages of containers and adds a massive burden.
评论 #9962307 未加载
评论 #9963317 未加载
morgantealmost 10 years ago
Where&#x27;s the evidence that Docker <i>isn&#x27;t</i> succeeding widely in production? In the past week alone I&#x27;ve talked to a dozen or so companies who are all using it in production.
markbnjalmost 10 years ago
I agree with many of the points expressed, and as someone who has used docker in production I have run into many of these issues myself. At the same time, I value composability and I don&#x27;t want docker to have a single monolithic approach to everything. Garbage collecting old images, fine, even though its not that hard to deal with the issue. Logging and distribution of secrets don&#x27;t feel like docker-level concerns to me. There are good solutions for both.
novaleafalmost 10 years ago
I run a tiny startup, and honestly don&#x27;t see a benefit to using docker.<p>Every service I deploy gets it&#x27;s own VM (which is automatically provisioned&#x2F;locked-down by a bash script), and they automatically update when a new revision is pushed to our production git branch.<p>It seems that docker is more useful when you have physical hardware? and&#x2F;or lots of under-utilized infrastructure?
评论 #9965053 未加载
davexunitalmost 10 years ago
I like Linux containers, but Docker&#x27;s image layering system and imperative Dockerfiles have got to go. A lot of pain points can be fixed by using declarative, functional package management and not relying on COW file system hacks to sort-of deduplicate files amongst many containers.
joslin01almost 10 years ago
I wrote about my experience with deploying Docker &amp; ECS here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9759639" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=9759639</a><p>I&#x27;m frustrated though because I keep pinging them about adding branch information to their (dockerhub) webhooks so I can actually deploy environments via branches.. It&#x27;s crazy vital in my opinion and seems like it should be an easy fix, but 2 months later and still doesn&#x27;t seem to be scheduled in.<p>Nevertheless, I&#x27;m sure Docker has its technical shortcomings but really, I wouldn&#x27;t say it&#x27;s not succeeding.. it&#x27;s just young. Adoption takes time.
评论 #9963568 未加载
评论 #9962417 未加载
icedchaialmost 10 years ago
It&#x27;s not succeeding because it&#x27;s usually not necessary.
hangonhnalmost 10 years ago
From my experience it is still buggy. For example, this bug:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;forums.docker.com&#x2F;t&#x2F;docker-export-intermediate-size-multiple-times-container-size&#x2F;2537" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;forums.docker.com&#x2F;t&#x2F;docker-export-intermediate-size-...</a><p>No one seems to know anything about it.<p>Also, when we upgraded from 1.6.3 to 1.7, devicemapper started having issues.<p>On top of the bugs, the limited networking support is very, well, limiting.<p>I would be very hesitant about using it in production at the moment. That said, I can also see the potentials and it seems to be heading in the right direction. It&#x27;s just not ready at this moment.
评论 #9962935 未加载
gusfooalmost 10 years ago
&gt; Configuration management software like Chef and Puppet is widespread, but feel too heavy handed for image building. I bet such systems will be phased out of existence in their current form within the next decade with containers.<p>Hmm, I don&#x27;t think so. My reason is that, in addition to the maturation and feature growth of containers, there will also be feature growth in Puppet et al.
Animatsalmost 10 years ago
Docker is part of the first generation of a good idea - containerization. The problem is that there&#x27;s too much stuff in the box. Each application doesn&#x27;t need its very own copy of everything. You get portability at the expense of maintaining your own distro. There will be a second generation of this, hopefully not so bulky.
siliconc0walmost 10 years ago
Just to oppose the pessimism here - we use docker in production and so far it has worked pretty well. We do run into the problems mentioned in article but they aren&#x27;t insurmountable. We also built a tool around cluster&#x2F;deploy management just like we had to do with chef.<p>IMO any tool that does procedural run-time configuration like chef&#x2F;ansible&#x2F;puppet will generally be inferior to an image based infra management solution. (unless you&#x27;re using said tools to build images - which is another ball of wax that will likely end up looking like a reimplemented docker)<p>The problem with procedural run-time config is that unless you blow away the VM, build from scratch, and run a test suite you don&#x27;t really have good assurances your infrastructure is in a good state. With images, you have a bit for bit copy of what was built and tested in CI or QA. This is, for us, worth the price of admission.
pjotrpalmost 10 years ago
Docker for reproducible Science is an intermediate solution. While a Docker image can be moved and rerun (with some luck) the content of a Docker image is actually <i>not</i> transparent.<p>Reproducibility implies being able to regenerate the full container including software version control and visibility of the full dependency chain all the way down to BLAS and glibc! You can&#x27;t do that by using apt, rpm, Perl CPAN, rubygems, Python pip and the like. None of these package managers have been designed for true isolation of packages and full reproducibility. That is why today people go with Docker. The shortcomings of these package managers drive people to Docker.<p>The technology for regenerating exact Docker containers exists in the form of GNU Guix and&#x2F;or Nix packages. The fun fact is that when using GNU Guix, Docker itself is no longer required.<p>Watch GNU Guix.
peterwwillisalmost 10 years ago
Am I the only person noticing that these problems only exist because you&#x27;re using containers, and that maybe by not using a container model you can simplify everything except running 10 different versions of an app at once? Maybe containers provide more headaches than they solve.
dcossonalmost 10 years ago
The security point here is something that confuses me about the current state of the ecosystem.<p>The article mentions that &quot;most vendors still run containers in virtual machines&quot;, presumably since if someone hacks an app in a container they might be able to break out of the container and access other apps running on that host. But clustering systems like Kubernetes, CoreOS, AWS Container Service, etc. seem to be all the rage these days and they seem fundamentally at odds with this. The cluster might schedule multiple containers on the same host at which point somebody who hacks one can hack all of them.<p>How do you reconcile this? Do people running these clusters in production typically run tiers of separate clusters based on how sensitive the data they have access to is?
评论 #9964454 未加载
oldmantaiteralmost 10 years ago
Using Docker as a local development system (especially with boot2docker on OSX creating a bunch of containers with different major versions of OS (el6&#x2F;el7 for example) and being able to develop&#x2F;test multiple apps at the same time is the only benefit I can justify for Docker.<p>But that&#x27;s as far as I will take it, Docker is mainly used (from what I&#x27;ve seen) as a nice way to package something without having to write an actual package (RPM&#x2F;deb) that will work across multiple platforms (for the most part). If you take the time to learn how to properly package your application, docker is unnecessary in almost every case.
emergentcypheralmost 10 years ago
My application compiles to a jar that runs on a server and expects an accompanying config file. I&#x27;ve tried giving Docker a whirl a few times and I never fully understood what need I had that it was solving.
评论 #9963729 未加载
shepardrtcalmost 10 years ago
I think containers are the future, but I think this generation is still a bit early for widespread use. Once they get polished a bit and are made easier to use, then I think companies will begin adoption.
mc_hammeralmost 10 years ago
the comments nailed it here too ;d<p>ill highlight the website is off by one... reading the website i have no idea how it works and what technical debt im adding to my teams stack by using it. &quot;Build&#x2F;Run&#x2F;Ship&quot;, I&#x27;m doing that already. I have no idea if its using VMs or something else for containers. no idea if my hardware works on it. and no idea if the distros used for images are 1 year old or -nightly, so whos security issues am i inheriting?
reidracalmost 10 years ago
So far my experience with Docker has been quite exciting, but I&#x27;m still to find a real good use case for it.<p>Also moving around a 700MB+ image when you can deploy some Debian package (or even setup a virtualenv, I do mostly Python), sounds a waste of resources. Add to that that moving volumes around is still an issue and... well, Docker has a lot of potential, but I doesn&#x27;t fit very well in any of the projects that I&#x27;m involved in.
DyslexicAtheistalmost 10 years ago
docker security issues[0] should really be listed as #1. The overhead&#x2F;complexity of getting it secure (using SELinux) outweigh its benefits in production.<p>[0] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.valbonne-consulting.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;04&#x2F;14&#x2F;as-a-goat-im-skeptical-of-dockers-hype&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.valbonne-consulting.com&#x2F;2015&#x2F;04&#x2F;14&#x2F;as-a-goat-im-...</a>
评论 #9965839 未加载
cyansmokeralmost 10 years ago
Regarding the author&#x27;s point on reaping children, it is a well know issue. I wrote (and I&#x27;m sure I&#x27;m not alone) a replacement &#x27;process 1&#x27; for that: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;Fusion&#x2F;cfr_reaper" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;github.com&#x2F;Fusion&#x2F;cfr_reaper</a>
peu4000almost 10 years ago
I&#x27;d really love to include docker in our puppet testing framework, so we can do actual meaningful tests without deploying to real environments.<p>But, dealing with all of the problems of deploying docker to production doesn&#x27;t look worth the time investment for a medium sized company IMO(we&#x27;re at ~1700 vms)
评论 #9962528 未加载
krzrakalmost 10 years ago
&quot;it has yet to disrupt production&quot; This overused buzzword in context of production looks ridiculous.
crb002almost 10 years ago
I would venture to say that Packer&#x2F;Mesos is far more important than Docker. You get automated full infrastructure builds from source or trusted binaries, and full cluster management. Docker is useful when you have many layers of apps turtled together as snowflake configurations.
altcognitoalmost 10 years ago
It is still early, and it took nearly half a decade to get companies to use cloud services and that has a well defined API for orchestrating resources. It will take similarly long for containers to have well tread paths for discovery, logging, failover, image building etc... etc..
评论 #9962640 未加载
stephengilliealmost 10 years ago
I&#x27;m confused by this paragraph<p>&gt; <i>Every major deployment of Docker ends up writing a garbage collector to remove old images from hosts. Various heuristics are used, such as removing images older than x days, and enforcing at most y images present on the host. ...</i><p>More specifically, I&#x27;m confused by this sentence, from the above paragraph in TFA:<p>&gt; <i>Most people discover their need by accident when their production boxes scream for space.</i><p>When did Docker become a replacement for Ops or Devops which are aware of their servers, monitoring systems that let you know when you&#x27;re getting close to the &quot;Yellow Alert&quot; warning, and some sort of plan for growth and expansion?<p>Hardware isn&#x27;t free, but it seems like some want Docker to make hardware free; delivering on the promise that full-OS VMs couldn&#x27;t realize, which was trying to deliver on the promise that HT couldn&#x27;t make happen. I&#x27;m sorry, but if you have 24 cores and 64GB of RAM, there&#x27;s only so many ways to schedule and swap to maximize use of those resources.<p>---<p>Copy on Write (COW) sounds like Thin Provisioning. Thin Provisioning is known for 2 things: 1. Slower performance than &quot;Thick Provisioning&quot; where the entire allocated space is zeroed on allocation, instead of on write. And 2. Ease of overallocation - you can take a 100GB disk and create 10 virtual disks of 100GB each; this is like reserve banking, and it&#x27;s only a problem if someone actually wants to use the entire resource that you say they can access.<p>I&#x27;m curious if they&#x27;ll have an NTFS option. Actually, with Microsoft&#x27;s recent open sourcing, I&#x27;d be interested to see NTFS open up a bit; maybe get an official Linux driver of some sort.<p>Will there be other write methods? Perhaps one that&#x27;s more similar Thick Provisioning?<p>---<p>I&#x27;d hate to see VMs die. The flexibility and value they provide to the Microsoft world is unparalleled. I could see Dockers replacing Linux etc VMs -- no need to run CentOS(?) to host your LAMP stack when you can just have each letter in its own cluster of containers.<p>Maybe if each Windows component was rerolled as a container image; we could have Domain Controller (DNS&#x2F;AD&#x2F;LDAP&#x2F;Kerberos&#x2F;ACL) containers, IIS containers, SQL containers, DFS containers that were backed by SAN or NAS, FTP containers, TFS containers, etc. And there would have to be RDP&#x2F;VDI containers, where users could remotely connect, and work in the environment with a desktop and GUI tools, since that is such a core part of the Microsoft ecosystem.<p>---<p>Looking at the Security and Image Layers and Transportation sections makes me realize how young this technology is. In a few more years, a few more iterations, and this could definitely replace numerous VM Appliances and Middleware devices. The time for Dockers and containers isn&#x27;t quite today, but it&#x27;s very close.
评论 #9962281 未加载
Moter8almost 10 years ago
Offtopic: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.imgur.com&#x2F;E3UyqFO.png" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.imgur.com&#x2F;E3UyqFO.png</a> Well, that was weird. A refresh fixed it. Chrome 44.
kitwalker12almost 10 years ago
I think the author missed orchestration. docker-swarm&#x2F;docker-machine is still not production ready and kubernetes is too damn complicated to setup outside GCE
评论 #9964930 未加载
评论 #9964757 未加载
评论 #9963082 未加载
ksecalmost 10 years ago
I always think Docker is just another layer of complexity. Which most people dont need or shouldn&#x27;t have
biturdalmost 10 years ago
&gt;Developing the public mental model of containers is integral to Docker’s success and they’re rightly terrified of damaging it.<p>I guess you can all call me a moron or close to it, to this day, I don&#x27;t know what a container is good for.<p>I&#x27;m reading this now: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.docker.com&#x2F;whatisdocker" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.docker.com&#x2F;whatisdocker</a><p>Is this server level, user level, both? Something else? I saw a Hacker Con video and someone was basically containerizing all their apps so that the underlying OS basically did nothing but run the hardware and containers.<p>Does this mean, one day, instead of monitoring my installs on Mac OS X to see what files were put where so when something breaks I can find those files? I could simply install to a container, my OS would not be touched, and I could delete the container and be back to a stable state?<p>Can you even get OS X to run on a container? Would it be a good idea or even feasible to install PhotoShop in a container, or not even possible, as that app tosses stuff all over my OS.<p>Or, is this more like a different way to do things, but it is still AWS and their AMI&#x27;s or Digital Ocean or any of the others.<p>I feel I am completely falling behind and have no idea why I would need one of these. Hell, if I made an iOS app, I have no idea if there are Apple servers you pay them to use for stuff, or if you deploy your own servers, or you use something like AWS, and how does that scale on demand, do you have to build that into your s=infrastructure, or is there a &quot;auto scale as demand dictates&quot; checkbox?<p>Is AWS, Docker, all the rest, in the end, is this just like in the old days where I would have 42U of rack space, put in a DNS server, put in a few http servers, use this as round robin image load balancers, DB servers, backup DB servers, replication DB servers. And when I needed to grow for heavy demand for a day, that was an issue. I fail to see how you can scale based on demand when a database is involved.<p>Databases scare me, one thing never talked about... We have git for code, what about databases. How does a dev team work that out? If you need a new field, drop some data, alter a table, add an index, etc. How do you get what you have on your local machine in test out to live? How is every little database change tracked and rolled back if need be. How do the DBA guys communicate with the coders to make sure a name change to a table gets updated in the code. Is there git for postgres and others?<p>All this made sense to me 5 yeas ago when the cloud was called the internet and email, ftp, http, etc were all part of the &quot;cloud&quot; or as I call it &quot;the internet&quot;. But now, things are confusing, wrapped up in terms like &quot;cloud&quot; that make no sense to me. I have been, as we all have been, using &quot;the cloud&quot; for over a decade, the first time I logged into a slip account and got on some gopher server or similar, that was cloud to me and I believe it still is. POP email is cloud, the internet is cloud. It is now just convoluted to the developer so end users understand something that really only developers need to understand. Am I making the same mistake with containers, and they are nothing special and have been around for ages like the cloud and it is just a buzzword now? Apple has sandboxing and something called containers in their OS, is this similar in principle?<p>Auto makers don&#x27;t burden their end users with engine shop talk, nor dumb it down for them into simple terms, but we seem to with tech. This should be it&#x27;s own post but I just kinda got on a roll, sorry.
JustSomeNobodyalmost 10 years ago
Can I Dockerize Windows?
评论 #9963138 未加载