News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Tell HN: Docker just ate 19GB of production data. Parent comment

[dead]
Re:Tell HN: Docker just ate 19GB of production data by scarface74 on Monday July 22, 2019 @03:55PM (#20501699)
Well, I wasn’t completely crazy. There was just a subtlety I missed.

https://vsupalov.com/database-in-docker/

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tell HN: Docker just ate 19GB of production data by sz4kerto on Wednesday July 31, 2019 @01:58AM (#20572007)
This is an ill-informed blogpost. Don't believe everything on the internet, really.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tell HN: Docker just ate 19GB of production data by kissgyorgy on Monday July 22, 2019 @05:08PM (#20502347)
I misread your comment, double LOL. I read "I thought it WAS considered best practice". Which is obviously not True.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tell HN: Docker just ate 19GB of production data by slenk on Monday July 22, 2019 @09:28PM (#20503746)
Not everyone's startup can necessarily afford purchasing lots of machines for each independent service, and they use docker to get around that cost barrier.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tell HN: Docker just ate 19GB of production data by scarface74 on Monday July 22, 2019 @09:48PM (#20503814)
But persistent data is so important that if your startup is so underfunded that you can’t setup a proper reliable data base, isn’t that a bigger issue? Why add the complication of Docker for production databases and why take the risk?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Tell HN: Docker just ate 19GB of production data by slenk on Monday July 22, 2019 @09:53PM (#20503829)
Well, I don't think named docker volumes are the way to go. They should map to disk and back up the native file system.

And/or automate a pgdump-type setup

[ Parent | on HN ]