Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2020 13:21:32 +0700 From: Victor Sudakov <vas@sibptus.ru> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Technological advantages over Linux Message-ID: <20200215062132.GD1482@admin.sibptus.ru> In-Reply-To: <1eb61cba-5e28-e8ea-c418-a06f0f94ec86@kicp.uchicago.edu> References: <20200214121620.GA80657@admin.sibptus.ru> <CAEJNuHwRs=6kOK9uiFzEAqCgSgvUb8Xm5o2VWnK-ND_zseowdg@mail.gmail.com> <20200214141600.GA82559@admin.sibptus.ru> <1eb61cba-5e28-e8ea-c418-a06f0f94ec86@kicp.uchicago.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--vni90+aGYgRvsTuO Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Valeri Galtsev wrote: [dd] > >=20 > > For example, the absence of Docker (or analogous technology) for FreeBSD > > is a huge disadvantage. We need to name really superiour features to > > make up for this shortage. > >=20 >=20 > In my book docker is really a disadvantage, not advantage, compared to > FreeBSD jails. Namely: >=20 > 1. docker carries pretty much whole system for one instance of what you r= un > in docker (that is, you have to patch all those instances of docker you > run), whereas whole bunch of jails can run under single instance of base > system; hence only one base system to update/patch I'm no Docker expert by any means, but from what I was shown by Docker advocates, you fetch the base system (usually the Alpine Linux, only about 40Mb in size) only once, and all application containers work on top of it. Once you update the Alpine container, all your container stacks are updated. Correct me if I'm wrong about the above. With FreeBSD's Linux binary compatibility, I see absolutely no reason why Docker has not been successfully ported to FreeBSD to run native linux containers (only with linuxolator enabled, because all necessary linux libs would be in containers). It could give a huge boost to FreeBSD's user base. >=20 > 2. [correct me someone if I'm wrong, I'm not a Docker expert): docker has > system whose components are read-write inside of its instance, hence it is That probably depends on how you compose your containers. Again, from what I was shown by Docker advocates, Docker has a way for contained applications to write to dedicated directories of the host's filesystem if need be. --=20 Victor Sudakov, VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN 2:5005/49@fidonet http://vas.tomsk.ru/ --vni90+aGYgRvsTuO Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJeR43sAAoJEA2k8lmbXsY0GFMH/0Vc9enZYHD1uHrcdDKaz9yK BmH9x/bdOhIMPXUpvJdfgOPPlJj47SxEog1sH3PgSMmGIWB/T/vgY1xEUOX4whWr W1AbZvUjmn3ghP3knVGOdLiGZb//pcdWqO4Vv+ninHn6yPg2lV1w9a2szW43sgHh glx0bT+Jz9ApCfgidy/BPnS07ChaO4+Ik8bQoqbEpRGWjEnwe2C7v1oYX/7Ei9Ry watWsSFmF0Br/u/Uglsyav7TiVtDMXjfcRcu8wieYMK7nqUFQr/HFvaafSIbqMhM +aVqWGDCJLqNoz8f8/jE6dEQFTA/ojO9YjyRW81RWSMKcEKtxU3qMU1PlLBRHvM= =JIHN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --vni90+aGYgRvsTuO--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200215062132.GD1482>