Server4You Review

scottalanmiller

Containerization was developed by Sun (not Oracle) and has been the only way for deploying Solaris for a decade now. Linux has had product containers for almost as long.

scottalanmiller

@johnhooks said:

So how do they handle the port issue?

They don't run Docker on a single IP address VM No different than how you host any VM, you get one IP per machine.

stacksofplates

@scottalanmiller

Oh ok, makes sense.

scottalanmiller

I think that the average business using Docker is doing so on private IP ranges. And anything exposed to the outside world is going through load balancers or connecting to a proxy service like CloudFlare Enterprise.

stacksofplates

@scottalanmiller said:

I think that the average business using Docker is doing so on private IP ranges. Any anything exposed to the outside world is going through load balancers or connecting to a proxy service like CloudFlare Enterprise.

Oh ok that makes sense.

dafyre

@johnhooks said:

I didn't mean to make this into a giant discussion.

Sure, sure, I believe you! But without giant discussions nobody learns anything.

If I were to use docker, on my home network, then I would use my own DHCP server and let each docklet (please... somebody correct me if I'm wrong... or tell me if I just created a new buzzaord, lol) get it's own IP address.

However, in the sense that I am running this from a VPS provider, I will have only a single IP address (right now) to run things from.

This does bring me to another question though... are Docker containers migratable like VMs? ie: Can I move this docklet from Server A to Server B ?

stacksofplates

@dafyre said:

@johnhooks said:

I didn't mean to make this into a giant discussion.

Sure, sure, I believe you! But without giant discussions nobody learns anything.

If I were to use docker, on my home network, then I would use my own DHCP server and let each docklet (please... somebody correct me if I'm wrong... or tell me if I just created a new buzzaord, lol) get it's own IP address.

However, in the sense that I am running this from a VPS provider, I will have only a single IP address (right now) to run things from.

This does bring me to another question though... are Docker containers migratable like VMs? ie: Can I move this docklet from Server A to Server B ?

Ya that's a big upside to them. If you develop one on your laptop, it's the same when you put it on a production server. You can commit the container and then move it to a new host. There are some ways that will keep the data in volumes and some that won't though.

scottalanmiller

Yup, the movement of containers is one of the reasons that ZFS was built like it was. ZFS was designed to be the storage for Solaris Zones.

dafyre

This is cool information to have. Sadly, it looks like S4U does not support Docker... Off to bug their support team I go.

scottalanmiller

@dafyre said:

This is cool information to have. Sadly, it looks like S4U does not support Docker... Off to bug their support team I go.

In what way does it not support it? How did they go about breaking it?

dafyre

That is what I'm going to ask, lol.

The system that I am operating from (CentOS 7) does not have any of the files in /boot that I need to modify grub. Nor does it have the current config of the Kernel anywhere that I can find on the system. (/boot folder is empty, except for grub folder. And grub folder is empty except for a splash image). It's not in /proc/config or /proc/config.gz

Any other places I am mising?

The problem is that I cannot use NAT (nf_nat modules are missing). Docker appears to error out with something about nf_nat. I can't even create dummy interfaces using ip link add...

For example:
[root@mycentos7 ~]# ip link add name test0 type dummy
RTNETLINK answers: Operation not supported

or

INFO[0000] API listen on /var/run/docker.sock
ERRO[0000] 'overlay' not found as a supported filesystem on this host. Please ensure kernel is new enough and has overlay support loaded.
WARN[0000] Running modprobe nf_nat failed with message: ``, error: exit status 1
INFO[0000] Firewalld running: false
FATA[0000] Error starting daemon: Error initializing network controller: Error creating default "bridge" network: inappropriate ioctl for device

I just emailed their support guys, I'll see what they say. SELinux is disabled at the moment.

dafyre

Sadly, one of their support reps tells me that They do not support docker right now, so I told him that his competitors do and asked where I could submit a feature request, lol.

StrongBad

That is pretty crappy. That is how people use these systems these days. That seems to put a lot of extra constraints on this.

Reid Cooper

What about another container technology like OpenVZ or LXE?

dafyre

@Reid-Cooper said:

What about another container technology like OpenVZ or LXE?

I would assume no on anything that requires kernel-level support for various items. I was pretty much told to move to a dedicated host if I wanted to use docker. I was proud of myself... I almost wrote back "If I wanted to maintain my own server, I would just buy one myself!"... Oh well.

Their system performs quite well. I'm running a web-based IDE on it called Codiad (http://codiad.com/) for developing some personal projects. It powers right through it with no problems at all.

I'll throw some more hefty stuff at it. I'm planning to install Zabbix and use them to monitor my ZeroTier infrastructure.

dafyre

See update 4 in the OP. The short, short version is... If you just want a VPS, these guys may fit the bill nicely. I had some connectivity issues with them this morning as I am trying to transfer some of my stuff out.

Alex Sage

@dafyre - Check out Vultr Local Storage (VLS)

https://www.vultr.com/pricing/localstorage/

scottalanmiller

is that a new feature that they just added?

Alex Sage

@scottalanmiller said:

feature that they just added?

No, been there forever but no one knows =/

scottalanmiller

Oh, that is just their normal storage servers We use those already.