Re:Docker in Production: A History of Failure
by ysh7 on Friday November 04, 2016 @04:17PM
(#12875712)
> If I recall correctly, CentOS and RHEL will use the device-mapper driver by default and CoreOS the btrfs
CentOS & RHEL uses device-mapper with loopback device by default (and logs "Usage of loopback devices is strongly discouraged for production use. Either use --storage-opt dm.thinpooldev or use --storage-opt dm.no_warn_on_loop_devices=true to suppress this warning". Also related article [1]
CoreOS uses overlayfs by default now from a while [2]
[1] http://www.projectatomic.io/blog/2015/06/notes-on-fedora-cen...
Re:Docker in Production: A History of Failure
by andmarios on Friday November 04, 2016 @08:43PM
(#12877452)
Thanks for the correction. It has been a long time since I had to setup docker manually.
Re:Docker in Production: A History of Failure
by user5994461 on Friday November 04, 2016 @03:05PM
(#12875045)
I think you're confirming the point of the article.
Gotta find the right combination of OS & filesystem to have a stable docker.
My choice is btrfs and it has been rock solid for me since the start. Of course one has to know a bit about btrfs and always leave a healthy percentage (I'd say 10% or more) of the filesystem free.
I think AUFS and overlay2 do have an advantage of their own though (apart the works-out-of-the-box). Due to the way they work, you can have shared memory between containers. Thus if I had to run many containers with a JVM app, I would give them a try to lower the tax on RAM.