

Is Docker Ready for Production? Feedbacks of a 2 Weeks Hands On - markgavalda
http://t37.net/is-docker-ready-for-production-feedbacks-of-a-2-weeks-hands-on.html

======
markgavalda
I'm looking for comments on this from someone with enough experience. I can't
believe there aren't simple solutions to most of his problems?

~~~
walterbell
Application virtualization is not easy. Docker has done an amazing job of
marketing the benefits, but the long-term solution is that OS and application
developers (not sysadmins) will design minimal OS+app bundles. See recent
discussion on Microsoft research,
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8257250](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8257250)

Docker+CoreOS mimics Google infrastructure - CoreOS is probably a better
"minimal server OS" choice for Docker than Ubuntu.

~~~
fdevillamil
I totally agree about both statements. My next hands on and post on that topic
will be about moving from Ubuntu to CoreOS and what it implies for our
existing infrastructure (I'm the article author)

~~~
walterbell
Unikernels
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7053638](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7053638),
[https://galois.com/project/halvm/](https://galois.com/project/halvm/)) are
working on related research issues, from the bottom up.

We need a cross-distro dependency manager that can generate app-liance images
for baremetal, lxc, kvm, aws/xen, vmware, azure/hyperv, illumos/bsd/zones,
etc. Such a dependency manager could encode management-related policy (e.g.
networking) into an image manifest that could be parsed by deployment tools.
As an image format, OVF was ratified by DMTF and may have useful concepts,
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Virtualization_Format](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Virtualization_Format)

