If you install docker-compose, podman and enable the podman service, it does work quite well.
If you also install podman-docker you basically can run: `docker-compose`, `docker compose` or `podman compose`, all three will leverage podman in the backend.
I use it with podman rootless and I'm quite happy with it.
The only thing not compatible that I know off is buildkit so you have to make sure it's disabled, they do seem to plan to implement buildkit APIs but it's not done yet
Btw, I also use Compose, but for local runs (of other apps).
By looking at HN activity on docker swarm, I can see many good comments: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...
There has to be some attempt at this right?
The idea is to write your environment in Starlark (a minimal Python subset) and we'll handle running it on Docker or Kubernetes for you.
We started with "reduce Kubernetes complexity" so we don't yet have the full Kubernetes ejection seat, but we're slowly marching towards it - feedback welcome!
I've found k8s more manageable with straight manifests, or tooling to generate the manifests from some other source.
I do need to give jsonnet a hard look, as I hear it's less crazy than yaml+templates
What I want to try to generate yamls is to write typescript code. Emitting JSON is natural in typescript. Adding types for schema compliance is doable. And then you've got full typescript power on top of it to remove any kind of duplication.
The 'declarative' nature of YAML + configuration for defining infrastructure is definitely a good thing, but the tooling for producing those declarations are in a very rough state. I think a "TS => YAML => git => deploy" workflow for deployments could make using K8S a breeze, especially if there is a sensible library in TS that could provide the base classes for manifests, that could be subclassed or wrapped with defaults + definitions for the local environment
[1] https://github.com/companyinfo/helm-charts/tree/main/charts/...
The thing that I would expect would be a bit complicated in a small project is networking rules, load balancing, mounting directory from host. That kind of thing.
With docker you'll probably bind container port to the host. With kubernetes you can create Service of type NodePort and it's exactly the same.
Load balancing: I'm not really sure what do you mean, what do you use for docker load balancing? Just expose your kubernetes host to the Internet and that's about it. Or hide it behind separate reverse proxy, if you want.
Mounting directory from the host is supported with kubernetes, no problems here. Use hostPath volume in the pod spec.
With docker-compose you realize you need a persistent volume and go "volumes: ..." and you're good.
With your own k8s cluster you go, "okay I need a persistentVolumeClaim to a PersistentVolume with a particular StorageClass that my cluster needs to offer". Then you go learn the "Right Way" to set up a StorageClass and 2 hours later you finally have a persistent volume. Repeat every time you try to do something that would be one line in a docker-compose file.
If you have easy access to an administered k8s cluster then kubernetes becomes way more approachable. What would be ideal for me is an offering that presents itself as a batteries included k8s cluster running on your local machine. That way I could make pod definitions and run them without having to understand k8s internals while gaining the option of deploying on a real cluster in the future.
For storage, just use hostpath volume and that's about it. You don't need to deal with PersistentVolumes at all. I never used named docker volumes, honestly, and I don't understand why they're useful, I always prefer to explicitly specify disk location, so I can back it up, etc. PersistentVolumes are useful, when you have separate storage system and full-fledged multi-node cluster, but for simple setup, there's nothing wrong with hostpath volume, IMO. Just don't forget about backups.
Podman Desktop also offers to set the socket emulation and Docker compatibility up for you, if you like.
podman-compose will and it behaves more or less the same way but it's quite a neglected piece of software - lots of bugs, lots of open PRs.
A lot of people talk about quadlets or k8s as alternatives but I don't think these are generally good substitutes for compose.
> enable podman.socket (available as system and user unit)
Won't it make podman be daemon then if it'd be activated by socket?
Won't such a daemon be run as root then to be able to handle creation of networks/ports forwardings/multiple-users?
podman-compose[1] replaces docker-compose.
[1] https://docs.podman.io/en/latest/markdown/podman-compose.1.h...
Most of the time my docker-compose projects only need to run on one or two machines without much horizontal scaling or fault tolerance and portability/ease of spin-up are more important than high 9s edge cases.
If that's my use case should I just stick with docker-compose, or does podman simplify kubernetes config enough that its worth considering the switch? I'd like the flexibility of being able to deploy to a k8s cluster if the cost is cheap in terms of mental overhead and how easy it is for another developer to pick up and run with.