Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 11:29:47 -0700 From: John Nielsen <lists@jnielsen.net> To: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The status of docker Message-ID: <0F16ACB4-9DF3-416D-B1F8-87DA8888DCD5@jnielsen.net> In-Reply-To: <03689819-B542-4F83-9E36-0E64739E019B@jnielsen.net> References: <089e330d-2761-2440-3b7f-dd22e9088af5@gjunka.com> <9A01020A-7CC6-4893-A425-11A7BF736F4E@ultra-secure.de> <42f59b63-fdc7-306f-d836-83533741a86c@FreeBSD.org> <CADYCxoMFjr%2BbdP0ZwD%2BqJcjttEQirDfZj%2BKMUT%2BDEyVpmhRzzw@mail.gmail.com> <03689819-B542-4F83-9E36-0E64739E019B@jnielsen.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Jan 23, 2019, at 11:26 AM, John Nielsen <lists@jnielsen.net> wrote: >=20 >> On Jan 22, 2019, at 11:54 PM, Sergey Zakharchenko = <doublef.mobile@gmail.com> wrote: >>=20 >> Hello there guys, >>=20 >>> Not quite. I took over the docker freebsd port. Currently I am = trying to >>> change him to moby project on GH. >>=20 >> Jochen, I wish you the best of luck. As a couple of cents, and on >> behalf of Digital Loggers, Inc., I've uploaded some old patches that >> we use to run an ancient version of Docker on FreeBSD: >> https://github.com/digitalloggers/docker-zfs-patches . They speed up >> building of large containers by not iterating over all container = files >> at every single stage, using ZFS diffs instead. No warranty, express >> or implied, is provided on those patches; I'm sure you'll find some >> edge cases where they'll break your container builds; you have been >> warned. Also, forgive my Go: that was the first and hopefully the = last >> time I wrote something in it. >>=20 >> That's not much; the real problems are with volume (e.g. single-file >> "volumes" which are hard links) and networking support; they were >> solved (kind of) by us by dynamically generating Dockerfiles and >> adding container startup wrappers, to the point that most would say >> it's too mutilated to be named Docker, so I'm afraid we aren't = sharing >> those for the time being. >>=20 >> My answers to why on earth one would run Docker under FreeBSD instead >> of using plain (or wrapped in yet another wrapper unknown to >> non-FreeBSD) jails would be uniformity, simplicity, skill reuse, etc. >> of quite a broad range of operations. However, Docker/Moby is really >> too tied to Linux; there seem to be random attempts at overcoming = that >> but they don't receive enough mind share. Jetpack >> (https://github.com/3ofcoins/jetpack/) could probably also benefit >> from the patches (with appropriate adjustments). Interested people >> willing to invest time in this should gather and decide how to move >> on. >=20 > Responding to a random message to share a random-ish thought: has = anyone looked at Firecracker? >=20 > https://firecracker-microvm.github.io/ > = https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/firecracker-lightweight-virtualization-fo= r-serverless-computing/ >=20 > It's the now-open-source basis of AWS's Fargate service. The idea is = to be more secure and flexible than Docker for Kubernetes-like = workloads. Linux-only at the moment I'm sure but I don't see any reason = that FreeBSD couldn't run inside a Firecracker microVM (using a = stripped-down kernel with virtio_blk, if_vtnet, uart and either atkbdc = or a custom driver for the 1-button keyboard. It's also feasible that = FreeBSD could be a Firecracker host (and able to unmodified pre-packaged = Linux or other microVMs) if someone with the right Go skills wanted to = port the KVM bits to use VMM/bhyve. S/Go/Rust
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0F16ACB4-9DF3-416D-B1F8-87DA8888DCD5>