Jolla’s Sailfish certified as Russian government’s first ‘Android alternative’

Re:Jolla’s Sailfish certified as Russian government’s first ... by TeMPOraL on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @07:46AM (#13070239)

Uhm. I'm not using containers much so I'm not up-to-date with best practices, but I recall a solution involving a "shared volume" for containerazed database to store data in. Is this approach wrong?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Jolla’s Sailfish certified as Russian government’s first ... by Zelmor on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @09:53AM (#13071184)

Yes, because when (not if) your container crashes, your data is gone.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Jolla’s Sailfish certified as Russian government’s first ... by superuser2 on Wednesday November 30, 2016 @02:17PM (#13073726)

Nope, that is the problem that mounts and shared volumes solve.

At that point you can argue there is no point in using a container, but your statement is false.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Jolla’s Sailfish certified as Russian government’s first ... by vetinari on Thursday December 01, 2016 @04:34AM (#13078260)

Mounts and shared volumes are fine, if you can guarantee that the container is going to be scheduled on this specific machine, where the given filesystem lives.

If you can't guarantee that, you are going into the world of NFS (which databases do not like much) or iSCSI, or, if you have distributed storage, into the world of glusterfs, ceph or something similar.

It's much simpler to just set up a database server (or cluster) and live with that.

[ Parent | on HN ]