Containers on Bare Metal
-
Does anyone have experience running the above? if so are you doing it in Prod/Dev ?
please dont start rant against certain technology, there are more stuff than docker out there , like LXD, OpenVZ etc.
-
Containers never run on bare metal. They are all considered Type-3 hypervisors. Assuming I remember correctly, it's been a while since we had that discussion.
-
To use something like LXD, you would install Ubuntu and then LXD.
https://help.ubuntu.com/lts/serverguide/lxd.html -
@travisdh1 said in Containers on Bare Metal:
Containers never run on bare metal. They are all considered Type-3 hypervisors. Assuming I remember correctly, it's been a while since we had that discussion.
I'm assuming he means run them on bare metal vs inside of a VM.
-
@Emad-R said in Containers on Bare Metal:
Does anyone have experience running the above? if so are you doing it in Prod/Dev ?
please dont start rant against certain technology, there are more stuff than docker out there , like LXD, OpenVZ etc.
It depends on how you're using them. If you're just treating them like systemd services (podman makes this easy) then it's just as easy as running normal services on a VM. I wouldn't worry about the extra abstraction if you don't want to until you are using orchestration tools like k8s, Nomad, Open shift, etc and you need to squeeze every bit of performance out of the application. But it's fine either way.
-
@stacksofplates said in Containers on Bare Metal:
@travisdh1 said in Containers on Bare Metal:
Containers never run on bare metal. They are all considered Type-3 hypervisors. Assuming I remember correctly, it's been a while since we had that discussion.
I'm assuming he means run them on bare metal vs inside of a VM.
Then the answer is no, because it's impossible.
It really doesn't matter. So long as you've got enough cpu/ram/iops to handle your workload.
-
@travisdh1 said in Containers on Bare Metal:
@stacksofplates said in Containers on Bare Metal:
@travisdh1 said in Containers on Bare Metal:
Containers never run on bare metal. They are all considered Type-3 hypervisors. Assuming I remember correctly, it's been a while since we had that discussion.
I'm assuming he means run them on bare metal vs inside of a VM.
Then the answer is no, because it's impossible.
It really doesn't matter. So long as you've got enough cpu/ram/iops to handle your workload.
Idk what this is supposed to mean but you can def deploy to bare metal. Depending on how the container is constructed and what engine you're using you can deploy just a binary that's just process on the system. All containers are just processes but not all of them are single binaries with no dependencies.
Even if you're using a full OS inside of a container running in Docker it's still using the kernel on bare metal.
-
@stacksofplates said in Containers on Bare Metal:
@travisdh1 said in Containers on Bare Metal:
@stacksofplates said in Containers on Bare Metal:
@travisdh1 said in Containers on Bare Metal:
Containers never run on bare metal. They are all considered Type-3 hypervisors. Assuming I remember correctly, it's been a while since we had that discussion.
I'm assuming he means run them on bare metal vs inside of a VM.
Then the answer is no, because it's impossible.
It really doesn't matter. So long as you've got enough cpu/ram/iops to handle your workload.
Idk what this is supposed to mean but you can def deploy to bare metal. Depending on how the container is constructed and what engine you're using you can deploy just a binary that's just process on the system. All containers are just processes but not all of them are single binaries with no dependencies.
Even if you're using a full OS inside of a container running in Docker it's still using the kernel on bare metal.
That's like saying "You can deploy Hyper-V to bare metal." Of course you can, that's the entire point. Containers are just another type of virtualization. I really don't get the confusion.
-
This post is deleted! -
@black3dynamite said in Containers on Bare Metal:
To use something like LXD, you would install Ubuntu and then LXD.
https://help.ubuntu.com/lts/serverguide/lxd.htmlExcatly, and not KVM -> Ubuntu -> LXD
What will I lose if I went Ubuntu -> LXD
that's what I am thinking .... what are the negatives or potential downsides to this in the future of skipping the whole type 1 virtulization
-
@Emad-R said in Containers on Bare Metal:
@black3dynamite said in Containers on Bare Metal:
To use something like LXD, you would install Ubuntu and then LXD.
https://help.ubuntu.com/lts/serverguide/lxd.htmlExcatly, and not KVM -> Ubuntu -> LXD
What will I lose if I went Ubuntu -> LXD
that's what I am thinking .... what are the negatives or potential downsides to this in the future of skipping the whole type 1 virtulization
I haven't used LXD enough to properly give a negative or potential downsides. But I think it really depends on your needs.
There is a nice documentation on LXD that can help answer some of your questions.
https://lxd.readthedocs.io/en/latest/ -
-
@travisdh1 said in Containers on Bare Metal:
@stacksofplates said in Containers on Bare Metal:
@travisdh1 said in Containers on Bare Metal:
@stacksofplates said in Containers on Bare Metal:
@travisdh1 said in Containers on Bare Metal:
Containers never run on bare metal. They are all considered Type-3 hypervisors. Assuming I remember correctly, it's been a while since we had that discussion.
I'm assuming he means run them on bare metal vs inside of a VM.
Then the answer is no, because it's impossible.
It really doesn't matter. So long as you've got enough cpu/ram/iops to handle your workload.
Idk what this is supposed to mean but you can def deploy to bare metal. Depending on how the container is constructed and what engine you're using you can deploy just a binary that's just process on the system. All containers are just processes but not all of them are single binaries with no dependencies.
Even if you're using a full OS inside of a container running in Docker it's still using the kernel on bare metal.
That's like saying "You can deploy Hyper-V to bare metal." Of course you can, that's the entire point. Containers are just another type of virtualization. I really don't get the confusion.
No it's not because a type 1 doesn't share the kernel with the guests. So even though the container could (doesn't have to) be using libraries separately from the host it's still sharing the kernel, it's just a namespace. So yes it's still running on bare metal just like any other process that would be running in the OS.
-
@travisdh1 said in Containers on Bare Metal:
Type-3 hypervisors.
never heard this term b4, and I think in the future it will expire. You would just run containers on bare metal and that it. we didnt reach this step but i think in 10 years or so
-
@Emad-R said in Containers on Bare Metal:
Does anyone have experience running the above? if so are you doing it in Prod/Dev ?
For like 20 years now, yeah. It's quite common.
-
@travisdh1 said in Containers on Bare Metal:
Containers never run on bare metal. They are all considered Type-3 hypervisors. Assuming I remember correctly, it's been a while since we had that discussion.
Type-C
And the majority run on bare metal. But certainly lots of people do Type-C inside a VM as well. That's what he is asking about. Both approaches are common.
-
@travisdh1 said in Containers on Bare Metal:
@stacksofplates said in Containers on Bare Metal:
@travisdh1 said in Containers on Bare Metal:
Containers never run on bare metal. They are all considered Type-3 hypervisors. Assuming I remember correctly, it's been a while since we had that discussion.
I'm assuming he means run them on bare metal vs inside of a VM.
Then the answer is no, because it's impossible.
It really doesn't matter. So long as you've got enough cpu/ram/iops to handle your workload.
It is, we do both and have for a long time.
-
@Emad-R said in Containers on Bare Metal:
@travisdh1 said in Containers on Bare Metal:
Type-3 hypervisors.
never heard this term b4, and I think in the future it will expire. You would just run containers on bare metal and that it. we didnt reach this step but i think in 10 years or so
That's because it is Type-C, not Type-3. Type-3 isn't used because it implies something that is incorrect.
-
Interesting, thanks.
https://containersummit.io/events/sf-2015/videos/type-c-hypervisors -
@Emad-R said in Containers on Bare Metal:
Interesting, thanks.
https://containersummit.io/events/sf-2015/videos/type-c-hypervisorsMangoCon 2 had a topic on them that sadly didn't get recorded.
