News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Docker 1.0. Parent comment

Re:Docker 1.0 by nknighthb on Monday June 09, 2014 @02:14PM (#7869643)
When I was working on a docker-based build/test/deploy solution a few months ago, its performance was so anemic I wanted to tear (what's left of) my hair out, especially during a development/testing cycle.

I got sidetracked by other things and haven't gotten back to it, but if I do and it's still as bad as it was, I don't think I'll want to continue on that path.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Docker 1.0 by contingencies on Tuesday June 10, 2014 @12:45AM (#7871882)
I haven't seen the code but have played with LVM2 LVs / device mapper myself on my own containers-based infrastructure and also seen performance issues in some situations.

Fundamentally (1) LVM2 LVs are capable of single-depth snapshots only, forcing hacks like an actual full blockstore copy if code expects duplication. (2) Docker was written primarily against aufs which provides rapid arbitrary-depth snapshots.

I suspect this is the heart of the issue... ie. Docker expects features this storage subsystem wasn't designed to support.

[ Parent | on HN ]