Re:Taking on Good Technical Debt
by p_l on Monday June 13, 2022 @04:12AM
(#31722635)
While the specifications are more complex, I find much more sensible in management than docker-compose, and allowing easier expansion (not scaling the service, expansion of underlying hardware) which means keeping costs lower can be easier.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Taking on Good Technical Debt
by alexalx666 on Monday June 13, 2022 @04:57AM
(#31722893)
Could you specify what you mean by "management"
One of the systems I set up recently I decided to go the docker-compose way. Quite quickly I found out that either the tool doesn't support (or at least isn't exactly interested in supporting) multiple compose files, or I am too stupid to find out the right combo of options, which resulted in a growing yaml file as the setup of dockerized components rose on that specific server.
Whatever claims about user friendliness, I didn't figure a stable way to do deploy separate docker-compose.yml's from same user at the same time.
Re:Taking on Good Technical Debt
by lukaszkorecki on Monday June 13, 2022 @08:09AM
(#31724312)
Not using Compose in production, but our development setup is split across multiple files - you can include them by passing -f flag to Docker Compose (I wrote a small wrapper script that does that automatically)