ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    How many Linux servers do I really need?

    IT Discussion
    8
    43
    7.1k
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • stacksofplatesS
      stacksofplates @Alex Sage
      last edited by

      @anonymous said:

      @johnhooks said:

      Traditional containers are (LXC, OpenVZ, jails, zones) docker is a different animal.

      What one would be recommend in my use case?

      If you're on Linux, I would recommend LXC. Ubuntu is making some interesting things with LXC and it's called LXD. One big feature is it will have live migration.

      If you are on Solaris you would use zones, if you are on BSD you would use jails.

      A 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • travisdh1T
        travisdh1 @Alex Sage
        last edited by

        @anonymous My default is XenServer now that it's gone to a free to use, pay for support, model. Linux performance wise, it is among the best you'll find.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • A
          Alex Sage @stacksofplates
          last edited by Alex Sage

          @johnhooks said:

          If you're on Linux, I would recommend LXC. Ubuntu is making some interesting things with LXC and it's called LXD. One big feature is it will have live migration.

          It's going to be Linux for sure. I am confused because this class has you to believe that Docker is better then LXC - there was a full 10 minute video comparing the two if I remember correctly. It seems that docker will some day support windows, where I don't think LXC ever will?

          stacksofplatesS scottalanmillerS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • stacksofplatesS
            stacksofplates @Alex Sage
            last edited by stacksofplates

            @anonymous said:

            @johnhooks said:

            If you're on Linux, I would recommend LXC. Ubuntu is making some interesting things with LXC and it's called LXD. One big feature is it will have live migration.

            It's going to be Linux for sure. I am confused because this class has you to believe that Docker is better then LXC - there was a full 10 minute video comparing the two if I remember correctly. It seems that docker will some day support windows, where I don't think LXC ever will?

            Wait, are they saying you can run Windows in a container or that you can run containers on Windows? I've heard something similar the latter, but not the former.

            A scottalanmillerS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • A
              Alex Sage @stacksofplates
              last edited by

              @johnhooks said:

              Wait, are they saying you can run Windows in a container or that you can run containers on Windows? I've heard something similar the latter, but not the former.

              Running containers on Windows. Run windows in a container would be nuts 😄

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
              • DashrenderD
                Dashrender
                last edited by

                LOL - I was wondering what benefit you'd get from running Windows inside a Linux container? (though I suppose one could say we already do that with XenServer - lol

                scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • scottalanmillerS
                  scottalanmiller @Alex Sage
                  last edited by

                  @anonymous said:

                  What about if I use Docker? 😄

                  Docker would be just as acceptable as LXC or separate VMs. Not likely a good choice as it is not designed for your needs, but it would work. Just be a lot more work.

                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • DashrenderD
                    Dashrender
                    last edited by

                    maintaining all of these micro VMs seems like such a pain in the ass. But I'm guessing there are tools, or at least scripts that can be written that will take care of all of them at once?

                    scottalanmillerS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • scottalanmillerS
                      scottalanmiller @Alex Sage
                      last edited by

                      @anonymous said:

                      @DustinB3403 said:

                      Docker doesn't add more to what you need, unless you want to go that route, and split the services with it... But virtualization would do this just as well in your case.

                      What about all the processing, memory, and space I save only having 1 OS?

                      It's trivial. For the same reasons that VDI is sometimes better than Terminal Servers - because the hypervisors do such an amazing job of this that the memory, disk, etc. does not expand like you would expect and the overhead of multiple VMs is very small. So small that unless you have a hugely saturated server, I can't imagine that you would notice. Containers are lighter than VMs, no doubt. But way more work and less flexible.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • scottalanmillerS
                        scottalanmiller @Alex Sage
                        last edited by

                        @anonymous said:

                        @DustinB3403 said:

                        Docker is meant to be running a bunch of identical processes side by side.

                        Hmmmmm..... I didn't know that. This course makes it seems like a container is a super lightweight VM.

                        Docker's purpose is to support extreme DevOps workflows where machines are never (literally, never) logged into and are built through tooling and in large numbers and never updated but destroyed and replaced instead. Can you do other things? Sure. Will it be fun? Heck no. Docker's design is around something so completely alien to the SMB market than the effort to use it well would be enormous.

                        DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                        • scottalanmillerS
                          scottalanmiller @Alex Sage
                          last edited by

                          @anonymous said:

                          @johnhooks said:

                          Traditional containers are (LXC, OpenVZ, jails, zones) docker is a different animal.

                          What one would be recommend in my use case?

                          LXC is the last traditional container technology on Linux. It ate OpenVZ. Docker and LXC completely own the market now. Rocket is an up and coming player. Jails requires FreeBSD. Zones requires Solaris.

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • scottalanmillerS
                            scottalanmiller @stacksofplates
                            last edited by

                            @johnhooks said:

                            @anonymous said:

                            @johnhooks said:

                            If you're on Linux, I would recommend LXC. Ubuntu is making some interesting things with LXC and it's called LXD. One big feature is it will have live migration.

                            It's going to be Linux for sure. I am confused because this class has you to believe that Docker is better then LXC - there was a full 10 minute video comparing the two if I remember correctly. It seems that docker will some day support windows, where I don't think LXC ever will?

                            Wait, are they saying you can run Windows in a container or that you can run containers on Windows? I've heard something similar the latter, but not the former.

                            Microsoft is working hard to get Windows Containers ready because they've been left in the dust, again, and it is massively impacting their market.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                            • scottalanmillerS
                              scottalanmiller @Dashrender
                              last edited by

                              @Dashrender said:

                              maintaining all of these micro VMs seems like such a pain in the ass. But I'm guessing there are tools, or at least scripts that can be written that will take care of all of them at once?

                              Yup, once you go DevOps containers are zero effort.

                              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                              • scottalanmillerS
                                scottalanmiller @Dashrender
                                last edited by

                                @Dashrender said:

                                LOL - I was wondering what benefit you'd get from running Windows inside a Linux container? (though I suppose one could say we already do that with XenServer - lol

                                Same benefits of containers anywhere. Lighter than virtualization.

                                DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                • DashrenderD
                                  Dashrender @scottalanmiller
                                  last edited by

                                  @scottalanmiller said:

                                  @anonymous said:

                                  @DustinB3403 said:

                                  Docker is meant to be running a bunch of identical processes side by side.

                                  Hmmmmm..... I didn't know that. This course makes it seems like a container is a super lightweight VM.

                                  Docker's purpose is to support extreme DevOps workflows where machines are never (literally, never) logged into and are built through tooling and in large numbers and never updated but destroyed and replaced instead. Can you do other things? Sure. Will it be fun? Heck no. Docker's design is around something so completely alien to the SMB market than the effort to use it well would be enormous.

                                  With that being the case - then why do we hear so much about it? OK maybe not actually hear real information - but everywhere I turn - Docker docker docker docker docker this, docker that - and MS will support docker soon too - etc... it seems odd that even places like SpiceWorks at times seems overrun by it - is it simply that SMB IT personal don't want to be left in the dust so we glom onto anything we can?

                                  Personally I felt like I missed the beginning of virtualization because to me it felt like it was for enterprise only - of course now it's being touted as the absolute starting point for any project unless you can show specific reasons why it doesn't/can't/won't work for your project (unlike SAN, which should still primarily live in the enterprise)

                                  scottalanmillerS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                  • scottalanmillerS
                                    scottalanmiller @Alex Sage
                                    last edited by

                                    @anonymous said:

                                    @johnhooks said:

                                    If you're on Linux, I would recommend LXC. Ubuntu is making some interesting things with LXC and it's called LXD. One big feature is it will have live migration.

                                    It's going to be Linux for sure. I am confused because this class has you to believe that Docker is better then LXC - there was a full 10 minute video comparing the two if I remember correctly. It seems that docker will some day support windows, where I don't think LXC ever will?

                                    Ah, a class. That explains a lot.

                                    Docker is good technology, to be sure. But the focus is completely different. If you are running a huge DevOps shop and every container is disposable and stateless and created through automation tools like Chef or Ansible and you have tons of identical ones, yes, Docker is pretty awesome (although LXC is too.)

                                    If you are not doing DevOps and your entire infrastructure is not designed in code and you ever want to log into a VM or use its operating system or have multiple operating systems or are an SMB then Docker is pretty much useless. LXC is for containers as we've been using them for over a decade - lightweight virtualization in a traditional way (which can be done as DevOps too, if you want.)

                                    So if they are telling you Docker is great but not explaining the ideas, concepts or goals they have missed the boat. Sounds like your instructor is a buzz word manager, most likely, and not too aware of the technology itself.

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                    • DashrenderD
                                      Dashrender @scottalanmiller
                                      last edited by

                                      @scottalanmiller said:

                                      @Dashrender said:

                                      LOL - I was wondering what benefit you'd get from running Windows inside a Linux container? (though I suppose one could say we already do that with XenServer - lol

                                      Same benefits of containers anywhere. Lighter than virtualization.

                                      Running Windows inside a container would be lighter than virtualization?

                                      So you're saying that you see a day when Linux would be installed on the hardware and Windows would be installed inside a container?

                                      Aren't we already doing that with XenServer - is a VM inside XenServer a container? lol - I'm confusing myself.

                                      scottalanmillerS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • scottalanmillerS
                                        scottalanmiller @Dashrender
                                        last edited by

                                        @Dashrender said:

                                        With that being the case - then why do we hear so much about it? OK maybe not actually hear real information - but everywhere I turn - Docker docker docker docker docker this, docker that - and MS will support docker soon too - etc... it seems odd that even places like SpiceWorks at times seems overrun by it - is it simply that SMB IT personal don't want to be left in the dust so we glom onto anything we can?

                                        We hear about cloud computing non-stop there too, yet it applies as a need to no one in the SMB. Sure they can leverage it but not in a cloud way. That it is cloud computing doesn't matter to SMB users, they only care that it is a VPS. Docker is super important - to DevOps shops. The SMB market, especially certain communities, are full of people lacking a lot of tech skills and run off of buzz words and marketing and "what they think the enterprise is doing." Ever wonder how anyone in the SMB even knows about SAN let alone buys one? Same thing. Hear what's cool from the "big boys" and assume that they will sound cool if they talk about it, too.

                                        There are lots of technologies that have little place in normal SMB yet are the major foci of conversation there. I'd call it "enterprise envy."

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                                        • scottalanmillerS
                                          scottalanmiller @Dashrender
                                          last edited by

                                          @Dashrender said:

                                          Running Windows inside a container would be lighter than virtualization?

                                          Containerization is lighter than virtualization. That is its sole purpose.

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • scottalanmillerS
                                            scottalanmiller @Dashrender
                                            last edited by

                                            @Dashrender said:

                                            Aren't we already doing that with XenServer - is a VM inside XenServer a container? lol - I'm confusing myself.

                                            XenServer is a hypervisor. Windows is virtualized there, not containerized. Don't start applying the word container to things that are not container platforms. VMs run on hypervisors, containers do not.

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 3
                                            • 2 / 3
                                            • First post
                                              Last post