Of Containers, Dockers, Rockets, and Daemons

http://3ofcoins.net/2014/12/06/of-containers-dockers-rockets-and-daemons/

by mpasternacki • 12 years ago

78 29 12 years ago

3ofcoins.net

wmf4• 12 years ago

It seems like it ought to be easier to document Docker than to rewrite it from scratch, but maybe I'm wrong.

Likewise if Docker is already one big binary it shouldn't be impossible to create a daemonless mode (Doxorcism?).

mpasternacki8• 12 years ago

Docker is not static. If much of it is implementation-defined, and implementation is evolving, then documenting a particular version of Docker is as valuable as I'd be willing to stay locked down to that particular version. And the APIs are not stable: just look at https://github.com/jenkinsci/docker-plugin/issues/115 to see how a Docker upgrade can break a project that uses its APIs (and if the plugin used CLI rather than HTTP API, it would still break: the cause was a change in formatting information that was not available anywhere in a parseable form, and as far as I know is still available only as "pretty text" to be parsed by a regexp)

wmf4• 12 years ago

Yes, documentation would need to be an ongoing process combined with a policy that code changes need to also update the relevant documentation. This may make development slower but revolutions aren't exactly efficient either (or I've just been playing too much Unity).

andrewguenther• 12 years ago

Documentation is not the primary problem with Docker that Rocket is trying to solve. The issue is Docker's process model, which is fundamental to the way it is built. Docker seems to have taken the opinion that the best way to solve the problems with their process model is not to fix it, but add more features to the kernel to force it to work. Rocket went with the fix it approach and simply started over.

Also, would you mind clarifying what you mean by "daemonless mode"?

wmf4• 12 years ago

By daemonless I mean making "docker run" be able to directly fork a container without needing dockerd. Like how "rkt run" works.

shykes7• 12 years ago

Yes, what I call "embeddable Docker" is a desirable thing. It will help Docker integrate with other centralized daemons that want to own the process tree, like systemd. I've made it very clear in the past that I want this too, but would welcome help to implement it. I'm actually putting together a "hacking sprint" so that the various interested parties can participate in making it happen. I actually offered the CoreOS guys to join the effort last week - but they seem determined to do it themselves instead. That's OK but they should know they are welcome back if they change their minds.

So, anybody want to help hack on embedded Docker?

See also this good, unbiased explanation of the relationship between Docker, CoreOS and systemd: http://www.ibuildthecloud.com/blog/2014/12/03/is-docker-fund...

groks• 12 years ago

The next systemd hackfest is on Jan 30th:

  https://plus.google.com/events/c56kbn26s6g01n6m4tj2nmdgnfc

If someone could fix docker so that projects like this are not required:

  https://github.com/ibuildthecloud/systemd-docker

...that would be great!

simonebrunozzi• 12 years ago

LOL. Doxorcism is pure genius. :)

pwernersbach• 12 years ago

I hate to be that guy, but Slackware has been around for longer than FreeBSD, it beats it by a few months. One of Slackware's goals is to be Unix-like, and that decision is definitely evident in the distribution.

mpasternacki8• 12 years ago

Thanks for pointing that out! Post updated. Slackware was first distro I ever used seriously, after getting hooked up on Linux with a Red Hat 5.0 or 5.1 CD that was attached to a (printed) IT monthly newspaper. I have to tell, FreeBSD feels kind of similar to Slackware.

vmiroshnikov• 12 years ago

Check out CBSD(http://www.bsdstore.ru/en/about.html). Seems as a viable management tool for jails.

Of Containers, Dockers, Rockets, and Daemons

Related Stories