Skip to main content

not all containers need to be micro

Redbeard did a presentation last year and his hypothesis is/was "no large containers". On the surface I agree, however, it's not always fat and skinny.

I'll present a single argument.

I use my CoreOS host for everything from development to production. The idea that I can expect the CoreOS host to be auto-updated and leave me in the same general state is highly desirable. That I can load a different development environment in separate containers is also highly desirable. The last thing I want to do is manage and maintain Ubuntu and CoreOS hosts. This means that as a  true DevOps I have day to day experiences with the entire stack and not just intermittent as I deploy of repair systems. If that were the case then I should go back to RHEL or Ubuntu.

As for buildroot. That's an awesome project and having a container that could build images directly from buildroot in a way that RB likes would also be desirable as it is complicated to maintain. Anyway...

Popular posts from this blog

Prometheus vs Bosun

In conclusion... while Bosun(B) is still not the ideal monitoring system neither is Prometheus(P).

TL;DR;

I am running Bosun in a Docker container hosted on CoreOS. Fleet service/unit files keep it running. However in once case I have experienced at least one severe crash as a result of a disk full condition. That it is implemented as part golang, java and python is an annoyance. The MIT license is about the only good thing.

I am trying to integrate Prometheus into my pipeline but losing steam fast. The Prometheus design seems to desire that you integrate your own cache inside your application and then allow the server to scrape the data, however, if the interval between scrapes is shorter than the longest transient session of your application then you need a gateway. A place to shuttle your data that will be a little more persistent.

(1) storing the data in my application might get me started more quickly
(2) getting the server to pull the data might be more secure
(3) using a push g…

Entry level cost for CoreOS+Tectonic

CoreOS and Tectonic start their pricing at 10 servers. Managed CoreOS starts at $1000 per month for those first 10 servers and Tectonic is $5000 for the same 10 servers. Annualized that is $85K or at least one employee depending on your market. As a single employee company I'd rather hire the employee. Specially since I only have 3 servers.

The pricing is biased toward the largest servers with the largest capacities; my dual core 32GB i5 IntelNuc can never be mistaken for a 96-CPU dual or quad core DELL

If CoreOS does not figure out a different barrier of entry they are going to follow the Borland path to obscurity.

Weave vs Flannel

While Weave and Flannel have some features in common weave includes DNS for service discovery and a wrapper process for capturing that info. In order to get some parity you'd need to add a DNS service like SkyDNS and then write your own script to weave the two together.
In Weave your fleet file might have some of this:
[Service] . . . ExecStartPre=/opt/bin/weave run --net=host --name bob ncx/bob ExecStart=/usr/bin/docker attach bob
In sky + flannel it might look like:
[Service] . . . ExecStartPre=docker run -d --net=host --name bob ncx/bob ExecStartPre=etcdctl set /skydns/local/ncx/bob '{"host":"`docker inspect --format '{{ .NetworkSettings.IPAddress }}' bob`","port":8080}' ExecStart=/usr/bin/docker attach bob
I'd like it to look like this:
[Service] . . . ExecStartPre=skyrun --net=host --name bob ncx/bob ExecStart=/usr/bin/docker attach bob
That's the intent anyway. I'm not sure the exact commands will work and that's partly why we…