Why not just come up with a sane deployment strategy instead of hacking LXC to do it?
While Docker is interesting, we've been doing the same thing with OpenVZ for years now, minus a lot of the hype. Containerization is great but it's being applied to the wrong problem.
As a Linux admin, the claim that it's 'Portable' really irks me. Portable, in this context, is misleading, as it normally implies your application can run on different CPU Architectures. Apple's Universal Binaries were portable. Docker is not portable. It doesn't even support a large number of Linux distros. Good luck running it on FreeBSD or OS X without a lot of headache.
Docker relies on AuFS instead of a more modern COW filesystem like ZFS or btrfs.
Troubleshooting this in production will be a pain (no way to meter IOPS, no support for IPv6, unsupported filesystem, huge security risks over real virtualization).
http://developer.rackspace.com/images/2013-11-11-peanut-butt...
Why not just come up with a sane deployment strategy instead of hacking LXC to do it?
While Docker is interesting, we've been doing the same thing with OpenVZ for years now, minus a lot of the hype. Containerization is great but it's being applied to the wrong problem.
As a Linux admin, the claim that it's 'Portable' really irks me. Portable, in this context, is misleading, as it normally implies your application can run on different CPU Architectures. Apple's Universal Binaries were portable. Docker is not portable. It doesn't even support a large number of Linux distros. Good luck running it on FreeBSD or OS X without a lot of headache.
Docker relies on AuFS instead of a more modern COW filesystem like ZFS or btrfs.
Troubleshooting this in production will be a pain (no way to meter IOPS, no support for IPv6, unsupported filesystem, huge security risks over real virtualization).