Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2016 06:18:18 -0500 From: Alejandro Imass <aimass@yabarana.com> To: "William A. Mahaffey III" <wam@hiwaay.net> Cc: "FreeBSD Questions !!!!" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: 64 bit linux binary support Message-ID: <CAHieY7Th1R3%2B=7TPikQ6vcRy7=_T1CdCAS=9DRX8u7-dufPh7w@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5697B6DE.6000706@hiwaay.net> References: <5696740B.5070404@hiwaay.net> <CAHieY7ThPcq6NDCuz_M2TuQUJuU1ZMKQrUYBuUnn3Gm5sFnaDg@mail.gmail.com> <86si20mza9.fsf@gmail.com> <CAHieY7SbzFG0zLtj=FD3=_eNsN9Lu3LjmYGP09U1_AXxGf9J2A@mail.gmail.com> <5697B6DE.6000706@hiwaay.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 9:53 AM, William A. Mahaffey III <wam@hiwaay.net> wrote: > On 01/14/16 08:27, Alejandro Imass wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 1:49 AM, Malcolm Matalka <mmatalka@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Alejandro Imass <aimass@yabarana.com> writes: >>> >>>> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 10:56 AM, William A. Mahaffey III >>>> <wam@hiwaay.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> [...] >> My response is pretty clear: Docker is pretty much like FreeBSD Jails >> so why not use FBSD Jails (e.g. with EzJail) in the first place >> instead of going through the trouble of getting a Linux-like jail >> system to run on FreeBSD. And if you want/need Docker so bad then it >> would probably be better to run on Linux to begin with. >> [...] > > Hmmmm .... It's not so clear to me, but that might be a deficiency @ my end > :-/. I would like to run 64-bit binaries compiled on/for linux boxen > (specifically CentOS/RHEL 6) on my FreeBSD boxen, currently 3 in number, all > various AMD64 CPUs, all running 9.3R. My question only involved docker to > the extent that the docker wiki page alludes to apparently newly available > (as of last summer) 64-bit linux binary support, which is what I am really > interested in. > Perhaps you should look into bhyve, the FBSD Hypervisor > I *AM* (separately) interested in docker, for various reasons. Specifically, > I would want to use it as a lightweight VM system, which I *think* works > under Linux. I.e. you can run a container of a non-native OS if it is CPU > compatible w/ the host CPU. AFAIK this is not the case. The reason Docker is lightweight to begin with is because: "Containers running on a single machine all share the same operating system kernel so they start instantly and make more efficient use of RAM" Where did you get this info about Docker being able to run a different OS? As I see it, Docker is nothing more than a copy of the FBSD Jail system ported to Linux and with some sophistications that make it easy to manage the images. Most of this can be done with FBSD Jails and especially with things like EzJail. > As I understand things, that is not feasible w/ > jails, although I have found some URL's which claim otherwise. Clarification > on that point would be welcome as well. I have asked before & been told it > was *NOT* feasible, but maybe things have changed or I am missing something. > TIA & have a good one. > IMO virtualization is not lightweight by definition. So you either virtualize fully or pseudo-virtualize with chroot-like systems. In this perspective I see Docker as nothing more than a sophisticated chroot system just like FBSD Jails, only Linux-based and less mature ;-) Best, Alejandro Imass
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAHieY7Th1R3%2B=7TPikQ6vcRy7=_T1CdCAS=9DRX8u7-dufPh7w>