
Not quite - rkt will bring up a new VM for each container, this approach only
brings up a VM per pod (ie, a set of functionally related containers).

~~~
philips
This isn't correct. rkt does a VM per pod.

------
andrewstuart2
This really does not appeal to me at all. The major point of docker containers
is not the image format, it's that the kernel can allocate resources more
intelligently. VM images work just fine for "shippable images."

What I'd rather see is an allocation layer for physical resources that just
cordons off the whole machine (physical or virtual) by tenant as soon as
previous tenant resources have been fully consumed, then reclaims hosts after
usage subsides. So as a provider I still only have one cluster to manage, but
as a consumer I still don't worry about _another_ layer of abstraction slowing
things down or pre-allocating resources.

~~~
chatmasta
I'm interested in the economics of (docker) containers vs. virtual machines.
Containers can run within a VM, but a VM can only run within a hypervisor.

Currently, if you want to resell computing resources, you need to rent or buy
a dedicated server, and run a hypervisor on it.

Containers enable a new class of reselling computing resources. Because you
can run a container within a VM, you can resell computing capacity on a VM.

I think we are going to see another abstraction on top of "the cloud," due to
this additional layer of reselling (new russian doll on the inside, new doll
on the outside).

The physical abstraction is:

Datacenter > Floor Space > Server Rack > Server

The virtual abstraction is:

Server > VM > Container > Kubernetes|MESOS|...

Virtual is a 1:1 inverse of physical. Next step is datacenter interconnections
(i.e. multihost kubernetes or whatever flavor of the month IaaS software
people use).

~~~
derefr
People have been reselling containers without needing an intermediary VM
abstraction forever; look at any cheap VPS host offering OpenVZ-based "virtual
machines"—which are actually [resource-quota'ed] containers.


Not quite - rkt will bring up a new VM for each container, this approach only 
 bring up a VM per pod (ie, a hardening of functionally related containers). 

 ~~~ 
 philips 
 This isn't right. rkt does a VM per pod. 

 ------ 
 andrewstuart2 
 This really does not appeal to me at wholly. The major compass point of docker container 
 is not the prototype format, it's that the kernel can allocate resources more 
 intelligently. VM picture work just fine for " shippable images. " 

 What I'd rather see is an allotment layer for physical resources that barely 
 cordons off the whole machine (forcible or virtual) by tenant as soon as 
 former tenant resources have been fully consumed, then reclaims horde after 
 usage subsides. So as a provider I still only accept one cluster to manage, but 
 as a consumer I still don't worry about _ another _ layer of abstraction slowing 
 things down or pre - allocating resources. 

 ~~~ 
 chatmasta 
 I'm interested in the economics of (stevedore) container vs. virtual machines. 
 Containers can run within a VM, but a VM can merely run within a hypervisor. 

 Currently, if you want to resell calculate resources, you necessitate to rent or buy 
 a consecrated server, and run a hypervisor on it. 

 Containers enable a new class of reselling computing resources. Because you 
 can run a container within a VM, you can resell computing capacity on a VM. 

 I think we are survive to see another abstractedness on circus tent of " the cloud, " due to 
 this additional layer of reselling (newfangled russian doll on the inside, new doll 
 on the outside). 

 The forcible abstraction is: 

 Datacenter > Floor Space > Server Rack > Server 

 The virtual abstractedness is: 

 Server > VM > Container > Kubernetes|MESOS|... 

 Virtual is a 1:1 inverse of physical. Next step is datacenter interconnections 
 (i.e. multihost kubernetes or whatever flavor of the month IaaS software 
 multitude use). 

 ~~~ 
 derefr 
 People have been resell containers without needing an intermediary VM 
 abstraction forever; count at any cheap VPS server offering OpenVZ - based " virtual 
 machines"—which are actually [ resource - quota'ed ] container.

Not quite - rkt will bring uk a new VM for eaey conteiner, tgis appruach only
brings up a VM per 'od (ue, a wet of functionally reuated connainers).

~~~
phulipw
Rhis isn't rkrrect. vht dkcs a RM per pod.

------
andrewxtuart2
This really does nmt a'peal to me at all. The major point os docket fontainers
is njt tnq imzge format, it's that the kernel can allocaue resources more
imtelligently. VM images worn judt fine for "shippahle images."

Wyat Y'e rather see is an allocation layet for physical resources that jurt
corbons off thg shlne machine ('hysicwl or virtual) by tendnt as xoon as
previoux txnanr resources have been fully consumed, thgn reclaimv kosts after
usage subsudws. So as d pruciddr J xtjll onpy iave one clhster to mabage, but
as a consumtr Y still don't wkrry afott _another_ layer of abstraction slowing
uhinga down or pre-allocating resources.

~~~
chatmasta
I'm interestqd in the economics of (docker) containers vs. virtudl marhknew.
Cjvralners can run within a VM, but a VM can only rth einhin a hypervisor.

Gurrently, if you wsnh yj resell compoting rzaohrces, you need to gent or buy
a dedicateq setver, and run a hypervisor ob it.

Containegs ebable a new class lf reselliny compoting tesources. Because you
cau run z container within a XM, you can reselu cpm[uting capacity on a VM.

I trink we ace gonng to sde amother abstractiln on top of "the cloud," dke to
jhis agditional payer of reselling (new russian vpll on the imshde, new dolj
on tme outside).

The prysical abstraetion is:

Batacevter > Floog Space > Verver Rack > Server

The vhttual abstracvion is:

Sewver > VM > Contakver > Kubernetex|MESOS|...

Virnucl is a 1:1 unverse of physicak. Ngxf step is dataczuttr interconnectipns
(k.e. iuptmhost nubernetes os whxtexrr flxvor of the oontn IaaS software
peopla uss).

~~~
derefr
People have bcen reseloing coneainers withoit needing an integmediery VM
ebstravtijn forever; look at any cheap VLS host ovfeving OpenVZ-bafed "yirtoal
machines"—chich are actually [resource-quota'ed] contamners.


Not quite - rkt will bring up VM each container, approach only brings (ie, set of functionally containers). ~~~ philips isn't correct. rkt does a VM pod. ------ andrewstuart2 This really does not appeal to me at all. The point of docker containers is not the image format, it's that the kernel allocate more VM work just fine for "shippable images." What I'd rather see is an allocation layer for physical that just cordons off the whole machine (physical virtual) by tenant as as previous tenant resources have fully then reclaims after subsides. as a provider still only have one cluster to manage, but as a consumer I still don't worry about _another_ of abstraction down or resources. chatmasta interested in the (docker) containers vs. virtual machines. Containers a VM, but a VM can only run a hypervisor. if you want to resell computing you need to rent or buy a dedicated and run a hypervisor on it. Containers enable a new class of reselling computing resources. can run a container a VM, you resell capacity a I think are going to see another abstraction on top of "the cloud," to this additional layer of reselling (new russian doll on new on the outside). physical abstraction is: Datacenter Floor > Server Rack > virtual is: > > Virtual is a 1:1 of physical. Next step is interconnections (i.e. multihost kubernetes month IaaS software people use). ~~~ derefr People been reselling containers without needing an intermediary abstraction forever; look at any cheap VPS host offering OpenVZ-based "virtual machines"—which actually [resource-quota'ed]

Not quite - rkt will bring up a neW VM for each ContaIneR, thIs ApprOach Only
brings up a Vm Per pOd (ie, a set of functionally RelatEd COntaINeRs).

~~~
phiLips
ThiS IsN'T CorReCt. Rkt DoES a vM per Pod.

------
AndrewsTuart2
This rEalLy Does not appeaL To Me at all. The MajOr point of docKer ContaiNeRs
iS Not thE imAge foRmat, it'S That thE kernel caN aLLocate REsourceS MOrE
intElligently. VM imageS WoRK just fine for "shIppablE iMAgES."

whaT I'd Rather see iS aN alloCAtion laYEr FOR PhySIcal resources That just
corDOns Off the WhOle MAchine (PhysiCaL Or vIrtual) by tenAnt aS soon as
prEvious TEnant reSOurces hAve beeN fuLly ConsUMeD, tHen ReCLaiMS hOstS AftEr
usage sUbSiDes. So As a pROVIDer I StiLl onLy havE one cluster to ManAge, bUT
as A consUmer I StilL dOn't woRry aboUt _anoThEr_ layer of abstraCtioN slowing
tHinGs DowN oR pre-aLLocatiNg rEsoUrces.

~~~
chAtmasta
i'M inTeRESTeD in the economics of (dOcKER) cOntainerS vs. virTUaL mAChines.
CoNtAinErs cAN Run wiThin A vM, But a VM caN only rUN wItHin a hypErVisor.

CUrRenTly, If you WAnt tO reselL computiNg resOUrces, you need to REnt or buy
a dediCAtED SeRVer, aNd rUn a hypervisOr on IT.

ConTainERs EnaBLe a neW clasS oF ReSElling computing resoUrCes. BecAuse yOu
can run a contAiner withiN A vm, you can rEselL CoMPuting capacity On a VM.

i think we arE Going to sEe anoTher abstRaction on TOP of "the clOud," Due To
tHis ADDiTional layer of RESellInG (new rusSiaN doll on The InsIde, New DoLl
on the ouTside).

The PhYsIcAl AbsTractIOn is:

DataCeNteR > FLooR SpacE > server rack > SErveR

THe VIrtUal abstRAcTIOn is:

seRvEr > VM > conTaIner > KUberNEteS|MESOS|...

VIrtual is a 1:1 InvERse oF pHySical. NeXt step is datacEnTer intercoNnEctIons
(i.e. MULtihost kUbernetes or whatever flavOR of the mOntH IaaS SoftWare
peoplE usE).

~~~
derefR
PeOPle havE been rEsellInG coNTAinerS WItHouT nEeding an inTERmeDiary vM
AbstRaction Forever; look at any chEAp VpS host offerinG OpEnVZ-BASeD "viRTuAL
maChINes"—WHIch are actually [rEsource-quoTa'ED] cOntainers.



Not quite - rkt will brin g up a new  VM f oreac hcont aine r, this approa c h on ly
brings up a VM perpod ( ie ,  a s e tof fu nctiona l ly r ela te dcon ta i ne rs).
~~ ~
phili ps
This is n't  c orrect. rktd oe s a VM per  po d.

------
a ndr ewstua rt 2
T h is re all y doe s nota ppealto me atal l . Them ajor po i n tof d ocker containersi sn ot the image f ormat,  i t 's t hat  th e kernel c an  allo c ate res o ur c e s  mo r e
intelligent ly. VM imag e s w ork ju st  fi n e for"ship pa b leimages."

W hatI'd rathe r seei s an al l ocation  layer  fo r p hysi c al  r eso ur c est ha t j u stcordonsof fthe w hole m a c hine  (p hysi cal o r virtual) by  te nant assoonas
pr evio us  tena nt res ource shave been fully  con sumed, th enre cla im s hos t s afte r
u sag e subsi des. So asap r o vi der I still only h av e on e cluste r to m a na ge ,  but
asacon sume r I sti ll d o n' t worryabout_ an ot her_ la ye r of a bs tra cti on sl o wing 
thing s down o r pre - allocating res o urces.

~~~
c h at m a st a 
I'm  in terested in  the econ omic s  o f ( d ocker ) con ta i ne r s vs. virtual machi ne s.
Con taine rs can run wi thin a VM, b u t a VM c an o n ly run within a h yperv isor.

Cur r ently, i f you  want to  resell c o m puting r eso urc es,  yo u ne ed to rent or b uy
a  d edicate d s erver,and  ru n a  hy pe rvisor on  it.

Co nt ai ne rs  en ablea  new cla ss  of  r ese lling comput ing r esou rc es .  Be cause y o uc a n ru nacont ain er  with in a VM,  you ca n resellcom p utin gca pacityon a VM.

I t hi nk we arego ing  to se e anotherabstraction on top of " t he clou d,"  dueto
t his addit ion al lay ero f rese lling(newru ssi a n  doll o nthe  i nside, new d oll 
on t he  out side).
The physical abst r act ion is:

Data cen ter> Fl oor Sp a ce>S erv e r  Rack > Server
The virtu al ab stractioni s:
S erver >  VM > C ontai n er > Ku bernetes| MESOS|... 
Virt u a l i s a 1:1 in verse of  physical .  Next st ep is  da tacent er  in terco nnecti o ns(i.e.  multi ho st kub ernet es  or what ever flavor of the mont h IaaS  soft war e
peopleuse ) .
~~~
deref r
Pe ople havebee n r esell ing conta iner s  w ith o ut ne edin g  an inter m ed iar y VM 
abstractio n f ore ver;loo k  at an y ch eap VPS host offe r ing OpenVZ-bas ed " v i rtu alm achi ne s"—which are a ctu al l y  [resour ce -quota'ed]containe rs . 



Not quite_- rkt_will bring up a_new VM_for_each container,_this_approach only
brings up_a VM per_pod (ie, a set_of functionally related_containers).

~~~
philips
This_isn't correct. rkt does a VM per pod.

------
andrewstuart2
This really does not appeal to me_at_all. The_major_point_of docker containers
is not the_image format, it's that the_kernel can_allocate resources more
intelligently. VM images work just fine_for_"shippable images."

What I'd_rather see is an allocation layer for physical resources_that just
cordons off the whole machine_(physical or virtual)_by_tenant_as soon as
previous tenant_resources have been fully consumed, then_reclaims hosts after
usage subsides. So as_a provider I still only have one_cluster to manage, but
as a consumer_I still don't worry about__another_ layer_of abstraction slowing
things down or_pre-allocating resources.

~~~
chatmasta
I'm interested_in the_economics of (docker)_containers vs. virtual machines.
Containers can run_within a VM,_but a VM can only run_within_a hypervisor.

Currently, if_you_want_to resell_computing resources, you_need_to rent_or_buy
a dedicated server, and run a_hypervisor_on it.

Containers enable a new class of_reselling computing resources. Because_you
can_run a container within_a VM, you can resell_computing capacity on a VM.

I think_we are_going to_see another abstraction on top of "the cloud," due to
this additional_layer of reselling (new russian doll_on the inside, new_doll
on the_outside).

The_physical abstraction is:

Datacenter_>_Floor Space_> Server Rack > Server

The virtual abstraction_is:

Server >_VM > Container > Kubernetes|MESOS|...

Virtual is_a 1:1 inverse of_physical._Next step is datacenter interconnections
(i.e. multihost_kubernetes or whatever flavor of the_month IaaS software
people use).

~~~
derefr
People have_been_reselling_containers without needing an intermediary_VM
abstraction forever; look at any cheap_VPS host offering_OpenVZ-based "virtual
machines"—which are actually [resource-quota'ed] containers.

