Docker and VMWare

https://blog.docker.com/2014/08/docker-vmware-1-1-3/

by julien421 • 12 years ago

90 73 12 years ago

blog.docker.com

walterbell2• 12 years ago

The companies are working together to ensure that the Docker Engine runs as a first-class citizen on developer workstations using VMware Fusion, data center servers with VMware vSphere, and vCloud Air, VMware’s public cloud.

How about VMware Workstation?

chipx86• 12 years ago

Workstation and Fusion are, under the UI, practically the same application. If it works in Fusion, it should work fine in Workstation.

djb_hackernews• 12 years ago

46 days ago I made this comment: "crickets from VMWare/EMC. Docker/containers will eat their lunch if they don't jump in and get involved."

after an announced partnership between the major tech players and Docker.

I take it back and the more the merrier.

limaoscarjuliet2• 12 years ago

Just a reminder, adding VMWare-like virtualization layer (i.e. full virtualization) to the mix will cost you more than 40% of your CPU: http://domino.research.ibm.com/library/cyberdig.nsf/papers/0...

In my view one of the key reasons to do it is to use AWS or the like. Until they have full Docker support on bare metal that is.

P.S. There are other reasons, e.g. Docker makes it difficult to create a separate publicly visible network interface. But these I feel will go away soon as well.

skybrian• 12 years ago

Looks like VMWare is working on that too:

http://googlecloudplatform.blogspot.com/2014/08/containers-v...

acdha• 12 years ago

Just a reminder, adding VMWare-like virtualization layer (i.e. full virtualization) to the mix will cost you more than 40% of your CPU

… on a couple of microbenchmarks when you define “CPU” to mean “I/O”. Even if you ignore the question of whether KVM performance is the same as VMware's (hint: no), most of the the charts in that paper contradict such a broad statement.

jasongill• 12 years ago

This article only mentions VMware twice in the body, both in passing. The majority of the article is a comparison of KVM and Docker. Many of the points in the article don't apply to VMware at all, or refer to things that are KVM specific limitations which VMware has already overcome.

In fact, the article says "KVM has much higher overhead, higher than 40% in all measured cases." - saying nothing of "VMware-like virtualization" or VMware ESXi at all.

While it's true that containerized "virtualization" traditionally has less overhead than a hypervisor like ESXi, the difference is increasingly small and in most environments negligible, especially considering the added features and flexibility of ESXi vs containers.

From my experience and tests, the performance difference between an app in a container running on bare metal vs the same app running in VMware has been insignificant, so to say that there is a 40% performance penalty is probably disingenuous.

rsync• 12 years ago

Neither jail nor Solaris Zones ate vmwares lunch ...

contingencies5• 12 years ago

VirtualBox is a bigger threat

burke• 12 years ago

Neither jail nor Solaris Zones ran on Linux, or had branding.

nl4• 12 years ago

That's not how it works. How many HN stories do you see about jails/zones? How many about Docker?

The ease of use of Docker and the ubiquitousness of Linux make for a disruptive combination.

The 'technically worse, but faster and cheaper' combination Docker offers compared to virtualization is exactly what The innovators dilemma talks about.

nilsimsa• 12 years ago

How does docker actually make money?

timdorr• 12 years ago

From their about page: https://www.docker.com/company/aboutus/

  Docker, Inc. offers Docker-related products and services and is creating a network 
  of certified professional support, training, and services providers. We are 
  committed to keeping Docker open source under the Apache 2.0 license.

They used to be dotCloud, and presumably have some legacy clients still paying them money to keep the lights on.

mattzito2• 12 years ago

They sold their dotCloud business so they could focus on core Docker.

corford• 12 years ago

They raised $15 million from Greylock and Benchmark which I guess will help keep the wolves at bay until they a). figure out how to monetize or b). get bought by Oracle/VMWare or similar

Thaxll• 12 years ago

What's the point of using Docker within a VM...?

pierre_massat• 12 years ago

"Providing machines for Kubernetes in not only necessary as a pool of raw cycles and bytes but also can provide a critical extra layer of security". [0]

Maybe it's true for now, but containers may be enough security in the future.

[0] http://googlecloudplatform.blogspot.ca/2014/08/containers-vm...

daveoflynn• 12 years ago

It's vital if you use a Mac/Win as a dev machine.

joeblau• 12 years ago

@daveoflynn is correct the LXC founding that docker is built on only currently works in Linux.

limaoscarjuliet2• 12 years ago

BTW, they are still Linux only, but do not use LXC anymore. LXC was replaced with libcontainer. http://www.infoq.com/news/2014/03/docker_0_9

lobster_johnson4• 12 years ago

The reasons are actually not any different than when running on a dedicated machine; running containers is a good idea, regardless of whether it's a VM. Containerization is a smaller, granular unit of isolation than a VM, and it's complementary to virtualization, not a replacement/competitor.

nubela• 12 years ago

Here's my __obvious__ prediction: VMWare will buy Docker for billions, simply because docker will make VM obsolete.

mrbill• 12 years ago

Containers don't fit everyone's requirements; the need for "full machine" virtualization won't go away.

WestCoastJustin• 12 years ago

I think you are right and wrong. Many people are using "full machine" virtualization today, when what they wanted was just application isolation and resource control, but the only easy way to do this, was to use virtualization. As recipes & tutorials come out on how to migrate existing applications to containers from virtualization, I suspect people will review if they really need "full machine" virtualization, or just use a container.

ps. Just to be clear, I think there is still a need for virtualization.

mattzito2• 12 years ago

First: docker is not going to make VMs obsolete.

Docker has their use cases: lightweight! PaaS! incremental push! 12-factor apps!

VMs have their use cases: Strong isolation! online migration! completely portable! consolidation for traditional applications!

So no, Docker will probably live alongside, next to, holding hands with, traditional VM environments, in much the same way that J2EE apps coexist with Rails.

But, the other reason that VMware won't want to buy Docker is that over the long run, these technologies become increasingly commoditized. VMware's hypervisor was innovative when it first launched, and these days, you can argue that you can get much the same functionality from KVM or Hyper-V - or even in this case, LXC and Docker for a different set of use cases.

Instead, VMware needs to make money on their management tools. Ideally, those management tools will be managing VMware's hypervisor, but they can't be afford to be so choosy. So, instead, they want a "first among equals" relationship with various open source technologies so they can be in the mix in every environment, even those where they haven't sold their hypervisor.

That's why they won't buy Docker - they don't want to sell the platform, they want to manage everyone's platform.

(note: everything I said is my own opinion, not that of my employer. We are coop-etitors with VMware in some of our business, and hence, I've got a conflict of interest I feel obligated to disclose).

nogox• 12 years ago

mainframe still exists with x86, but the real question is: who cares mainframe. The similar argument when VM is introduced. People say virtualization only fits a subnet of use case. Now what? Look for the nextt 5 yrs, you will see vmware in a really bad position.

personZ• 12 years ago

simply because docker will make VM obsolete

This is not true at all. Docker fits a very, very specific use case, and is a very small subset of what we use VMs for. To enhance Docker to cover those cases you would eventually end up with VMs.

ubikkibu• 12 years ago

Docker fits a use case that is quite broad actually, and encompasses a large subset of what most people use VMs for.

astockwell• 12 years ago

More of an observation than anything, but Docker certainly has the corporate-ese marketing speak down pat. Much more so than most other "hot" OSS/platforms. Why such a different culture? Or are they just trying to climb into VMWare's bed?

superuser22• 12 years ago

Docker is more useful to people with more services to containerize, and that often means enterprise. To your average start-up with at most a couple of Rails apps, it's not nearly as much of a value-add.

markbnj• 12 years ago

Don't really agree with this. Being able to configure a new instance quickly and easily is useful no matter how large you are. For that matter, so is being able to spin up an isolated environment on a dev box as fast as you can start an editor.

drcode4• 12 years ago

your average start-up with at most a couple of Rails apps DOESN'T REALIZE THE VALUE-ADD YET.

FTFY.

simonpantzare• 12 years ago

I think Ben Golub plays a part in that. As superuser2 says, enterprises make up a large chunk of Docker's market. Github is also tapping into this segment—most of their recent hires are extensions to their enterprise support, sales, and account management teams.

lobster_johnson4• 12 years ago

Docker has professional sales and marketing staff. Most open source projects don't because they aren't really businesses. ElasticSearch is a billion-dollar company; then there's Pivotal, Basho, Github, Mozilla etc., all organizations that have managed not just to become popular open-source projects, but profitable companies. Docker themselves raised $15m recently.

otterley2• 12 years ago

VMWare "management"? Is that even possible from the command line these days?

superuser22• 12 years ago

No. But a big slow Windows-only GUI seems to be exactly what enterprise customers demand.

networkguy• 12 years ago

VMware has a strong GUI focus for the majority of Sysadmins and Virtual Admins that use it.

That said; there is a huge command line, shell and APIs available for power users, for people who want the next level of certification from VMware (VMware Certified Advanced Professional) you need to know how to do common GUI tasks via CLI and troubleshoot via CLI.

There is a surprising amount of tools under the hood, but if you want to compare it to something Linux based I'm going to speculate that it isn't as extensive.

tbyehl2• 12 years ago

vCLI (Windows, Linux, & Linux appliance) and PowerCLI (Windows Powershell) are both quite extensive.

zwischenzug• 12 years ago

I've been working to get a VMWare vCAC install going in my $corp. Have been avoiding talking about docker in meetings with them as I thought it would be embarrassing for them as privately I think it'll reduce VMWare's power.

So very surprised by this!

alrs• 12 years ago

Has anyone told the Enterprise that Docker doesn't support Windows?

wmf4• 12 years ago

Maybe they'll buy Parallels and rename Virtuozzo to Docker for Windows.

drcode4• 12 years ago

Has anyone told Microsoft that new technology companies don't bother to support their outdated OS anymore?

grigio• 12 years ago

I don't understand why Docker cares about VMvare

Spooky23• 12 years ago

VMWare completely and utterly owns the enterprise space. Enterprises spend many billions on IT.

contingencies5• 12 years ago

Wasn't there a recent study published on HN that concluded container-in-VM was really bad idea performance and security-wise, and that VM-in-container was really good?

wmf4• 12 years ago

That conclusion really only applies to Linux; VMware can't run VMs in containers. When all you can run is VMs, then you'll promote $X in VMs for all $X.

You might be thinking of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8146536

snoman• 12 years ago

Docker looks like a really interesting concept, but to say that with docker you can "write once, run anywhere" is a misrepresentation at best, and an outright lie at worst.

Looking at their docs (https://docs.docker.com/installation/windows/) their idea of "running on windows" is "running in a virtualbox linux vm, on windows".

That really rubs me the wrong way and I'm surprised that the HN community lets it slide.

drcode4• 12 years ago

Docker is a new technology- I suspect the poor support that Windows has for Docker is going to cut into Microsoft's bottom line in the coming years. Microsoft MUST support high performance docker in the next year or I suspect they are going to lose a lot of server customers soon, if Docker's exponential adoption curve continues for the foreseeable future.

Let's face it- Microsoft Windows is really just a legacy OS now... They either need to switch to a UNIX-derived kernel, which would allow for native docker support (amongst a million other advantages that come from sharing a sensible common infrastructure with other OSes) or they are headed for the dustbin of history pretty soon.

Bahamut• 12 years ago

As nice as that would be, I don't see this happening until gaming gets popular on unix based platforms. Ths would be because then it becomes easier for consumers to flee to another OS. With gaming predominantly on Windows platforms for PCs, gamers have no choice but to use Windows to play most of the games they're interested in, which locks them into Windows.

jpgvm• 12 years ago

No. Windows need not support Docker.

Lets be honest. How many people are deploying WebLogic on Docker? How about SAP? How about any large enterprise back office application at all?

You see, Windows Server serves an entirely different market. The kind of applications being deployed on OS level virtualisation just don't get deployed on Windows anyways. About as close as you are going to get are Java applications which even then are usually deployed on a point of abstraction like an application server. (At the end of the day RHEL is still much more common for big Java apps)

That is not to say that Windows would not benefit from some sort of OS level virtualisation, only that it means absolutely nothing that they don't have it right now (or even for a few years).

Windows Server will continue to dominate back office deployments ad infinitum.

lobster_johnson4• 12 years ago

Windows is really just a legacy OS now

As much as I dislike Windows, there is a whole world of "enterprise" software running on Windows that isn't going away. SQL Server and Active Directory come to mind as Microsoft products being heavily and actively invested in by the enterprise.

If you're in the Ruby/Python/Go/Docker/whatever echo chamber it's easy to miss the other echo chambers out there. There are tons of companies out there still making a decent living from developing and maintaining software in curiously tenacious tech like Delphi, FileMaker and MUMPS.

jamra• 12 years ago

I believe that's the same with OS X. When I tried out Docker, you could only run on OS X with Vagrant.

nl4• 12 years ago

It isn't talking about operating system compatibility.

It's talking about being able to use the same container technology on a "choice of deployment from laptops to bare metal to VMs to private and public clouds."

flying_whale• 12 years ago

This helps explain VMware's vision behind the partnership.

http://cto.vmware.com/vmware-docker-better-together/

Docker and VMWare

Related Stories