How Docker broke in half
infoworld.com
infoworld.com
They were not wrong on saying that Kubernetes was very complicated, at least in some sense. In the beginning no one wanted to use it because they could easily setup Docker Swarm with minimal effort. This argument still pops up frequently on HN when there's a new post about Kubernetes.
I guess the problem was they didn't realize why Kubernetes needs to be that complicated. And if a system is complicated for good reasons, that's actually good business opportunity and tons of people and companies will be willing to make the effort to fill that gap.
Kubernetes has become a speeding bullet, it won't be easy to catch and it has to run through a lot of walls to slow down for a competitor to do any damage to it's dominance.
Ha, I can at least assure you we're not oblivious. Nomad has a product manager from Mesosphere and most of HashiCorp's products integrate deeply with Kubernetes. We're well aware Kubernetes is the juggernaut to which every other scheduler has succumbed.
I believe there's room for both Nomad and Kubernetes. Whether as competitors or complements, having more than one vibrant project in the orchestration space will hopefully make all the projects better for users. Any one project has to make tradeoffs that improve the user experience for some while degrading it for others. For example Kubernetes has an IP-per-Pod network abstraction which provides an excellent out of the box PaaS-like experience for microservices in the cloud. On the other hand Nomad's more flexible network model more easily supports networks outside of flat cloud topologies whether it's small home raspberrypi clusters or globally distributed edge compute.
What I was calling out is the abundance of people who claim it is the greatest thing since the tech equivalent of sliced bread, and love to point out how simple it is despite requiring the need for Consul to run it at enterprise scale and likely also Vault if you need secret management in any form, which then also needs Consul if you want to run it at scale. I have intimate experience with running Vault and Consul and have advised colleagues for the better part of 2 years on utilising Vault (either as basic secrets management or some of its more advanced features). IIRC the recommendation from HC is also running a third Consul cluster for service discovery. If running Nomad at scale is anything like Vault, then it isn't as simple as people make it out to be, never mind the fact that you'll probably be running 5 different clusters of 3 different products to provide functionality that doesn't fulfill half of what Kubernetes gives.
The complexity of setting up a Nomad cluster due to Vault and Consul being soft requirements is very real and something we're hoping to (finally!) make progress on in the coming months.
the only thing which is not so easy is LoadBalancing to extern i.e. kube-vip/metallb both can be a pain (externalTrafficPolicy: Local is still a shit show). k3s basically creates a k8s cluster with everything except good load balancing over multiple nodes
Nomad does not have a first class LoadBalancing concept in keeping with its unopinionated network model, although we may add ingress/loadbalancing someday. Right now most people use Traefik or Nginx with Consul for ingress, and Consul Connect is popular for internal service mesh. Obviously unfortunate extra complexity over having it builtin, but Nomad has been focused more on core scheduling than these ancillary services so far.
There have been lots of speeding, hard-to-catch bullets in the past.
Hard[0] disagree[1] on this[2]. Nomad is a direct competitor of Kubernetes.
[0] https://www.nomadproject.io/docs/nomad-vs-kubernetes
[1] https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/a-kubernetes-user-s-guide-to-...
[2] https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/nomad-kubernetes-a-pragmatic-...
Swarm is still what 99% of companies need when they adopt Kubernetes, and is probably 1/10th to 1/20th the cost. Somebody needs to re-invent swarm as an independent project so that we can stop investing in K8s. The cost of K8s isn't even in the complexity, it's in all the millions of side-effects of the complexity, like security, fragmentation, and specialization.
On the plus side, if someone else configured the cluster correctly for you (e.g. a Cloud service like GKE), then it's a breeze to use.
But if you're on-prem, and have a tonne of metal and just arrived in 2014 via a time machine, swarm was so much simpler and simpler that if you were a sysadmin who already had their own scripts -- their own jenkins-powered IC and git-hooks that built and deployed -- whatever it is you were building -- then swarm looked like a nice gradual extension of that, and k8s looked more like starting over and admitting defeat.
Don't get me wrong, I would absolutely go with k8s on any greenfield project but there's a huge huge opportunity for someone to take everyone's VM orchestration tools and quietly and semi-transparently add k8s support for gradual migrations.
Personally, k8s is one of the easiest system I learned to use in the past few years. It has many components, too many that one can't practically understand all of them well. But every component follows the same design principle, so there's a clear path for a noob like me to get the full picture step by step.
The first thing I read on k8s was controller pattern[0]. Then everything becomes so easy to learn. Something wrong with a pod? Find its controller and start troubleshooting from there. Oh, the pod is controlled by a replicaset? Check replicaset controller. The replicaset is managed by a deployment? You know where to go.
That's why I said it is only complicated in some sense. I saw a lot of people started learning this system by going through a list of popular components and their concepts. I would've gotten lost easily and probably given up if I did the same in the beginning.
[0]: https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/architecture/controller/
It was barebones like Mesos but they managed to focus on the right things early on. Once these features and a bit of an ecosystem started to build, the question if we should stay on Mesos with a bunch of homegrown management tooling or move to Kubernetes wasn't even a decision anymore. There was still a significant amount of code which we later just deleted because it became a first class feature or the community implemented something much better.
I guess this strongly depends on one's needs. I mean, if all you want to do is glue together a couple of nodes and have a few stacks running on them, do we really need all the bells and whistles?
I mean, with Docker Swarm anyone can get ingress right from the start on any bare ones cloud provider. Deploy your Docker Swarm cluster, slap a service like Traefik, and you're done. It's a 10min job. What else does Kubernetes brings to the table?
You can read Docker Swarm's docs end-to-end in < 30 minutes, and have a cluster running in roughly the amount of time it takes to install Docker on three boxes.
Docker's failing was a failure to market Docker Swarm. Most people don't even know it exists, yet every single machine with Docker has it already! The last time I checked, they only had a single dev that was part-time allocated to supporting it.
So it's not so much that Docker failed to jump on the k8s bandwagon, so much as they built a wonderful thing that they never marketed and semi-abandoned, to focus on Docker Hub and other core Docker things they thought they'd be able to more directly monetize.
Fortunately, Docker Swarm remains a wonderful piece of software, even without particularly active investment, because it is a fairly complete offering for most use cases. And it seems to be growing in adoption.
Docker Swarm remains far simpler to set up, run, and troubleshoot than Kubernetes.
I just can't choose it over K8s, though, knowing that it's unsupported.
My fallback, if Swarm is ever removed, is Hashicorp's Nomad. I've only used it in a hobby capacity, but is (at face value, at least) another wonderful piece of software. I've used k8s a bunch in production (including right now at my current employer) and just can't recommend it – it's a technical distraction for most teams.
- Cert Renewal / Rotation: https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/commandline/swarm_c...
- TLS Termination: Arguably this is an application layer concern and out of scope for an orchestration layer, but in either case use Nginx (or your favorite TLS terminating proxy) as your ingress point. This is equivalent to the Nginx ingress controller in k8s.
- Storage: Docker volumes (local or ceph, for distributed).
- Disaster Recovery: Node failure? Cluster failure? Data loss? What kind of DR? The strategies you'd use with Swarm will be very similar to those you'd use with k8s.
- Grouping resources: Labels and/or services.
In a Swarm world you'll have fewer moving pieces, far lower resource requirements, and will manage it all in a docker-compose file(s). You'll also get things like service discovery, routing, and secrets management for "free". No additional configuration needed.
You linked Swarm CA renewal operations; this is maybe 1/50 of the functionality of cert-manager. Is there a product like cert-manager that I can run on Swarm that's tightly integrated?
Why not have ingress intrinsically linked to the underlying reaources like k8s does? Your suggestion means that someone needs to come up with a methodology and automation to update ingress with Swarm. Yeah, it's obviously possible but imo, Traefik ingress reaources are way easier to manage with config spread across far fewer places.
Storage.. I have an nfs storage provider in k8s which allows me to dynamically create storage with lifecycle management included... for free... just because I'm using k8s.
DR as in something happens to my house or other technical issues which bring down my cluster. I would posit that it's much easier for me to restore a cluster because it's all yaml and imo more descriptive and capable than swarm yaml syntax.
I think you get my point. Yes, you can do it all with Swarm but with things like k3s and k0s, it's just as easy to start using k8s. And way more help, docs, and tooling to boot.
"I'm going to use this product/project."
"You shouldn't use that, use this instead."
"But this product/project has all these features I want."
"Sure but you can just build and maintain those features yourself if you want. It's open source, after all!"
Or alternately:
"Well no one really needs those anyway, it's just people being told that they do."
I've been hearing this same refrain for over twenty years now. It seems as though some people don't understand that there's actual value in having a system that just works, rather than one that you have to build and maintain yourself just to emulate the system that works.
Specifically, it feels like you are missing that the people who argue against k8s are saying that it is extremely difficult to configure, and so instead of this clean "some people don't understand that it is nice to have a system that just works", it feels like the argument is actually about a tradeoff between what you think is easier to put together: a single system with a million options that seem to all need to be configured or it doesn't work or a handful of systems that are each easy to understand in separate, but where you will need to do all the glue manually.
> It seems as though some people don't understand that there's actual value in having a system that just works, rather than one that you have to build and maintain yourself just to emulate the system that works.
This, however, feels like a lie.
It might "just work" because of the efforts of hundreds of engineers that are in the employ of the larger cloud vendors, because they're handling all of the problems in the background, however that will also cost you. It might also "just work" in on prem deployments because you simply haven't run into any problems yet... and in my experience it's not a matter of "Whether?" but rather one of "When?"
And when these problems inevitably do surface, you have to ask yourself, whether you have the capacity to debug them and mitigate them. In the case of K3s clusters, or another lightweight Kubernetes distro that might be doable. However, if you're dealing with a large distro like RKE or your own custom one, then you might have to debug this complex, fragmented and distributed system to get to the root cause and then figure out how to solve it.
There's definitely a reason why so many DevOps specialists with Kubernetes credentials are so well paid right now. There's also a reason for why many of the enterprise deployments of Kubernetes that i've seen are essentially black holes of manhours, much like implementing Apache Kafka when something like RabbitMQ might have sufficed - sometimes because of chasing after hype and doing CV driven development, other times because the people didn't know enough about the other options out there. There's also a reason for why Docker Swarm is still alive and kicking despite how its maintenance and development have been mismanaged, as well as why HashiCorp Nomad is liked by many.
In short:
The people who will try to build their own complex systems will most likely fail and will build something undocumented, unmaintainable, buggy and unstable.
The people who try to adapt the technologies that are better suited for large scale deployments for their own needs, might find that the complexity grinds their velocity to a halt and makes them waste huge amounts of effort in maintaining this solution.
The people who want to make someone else deal with these complexities and just want the benefits of the tech, will probably have to pay appropriately for this, which sometimes is a good deal, but other times is a bad one and also ensures vendor lock.
The people who reevaluate what they're trying to do and how much they actually need to do, might sometimes settle for a lightweight solution which does what's necessary, not much more and leads to vaguely positive outcomes.
Folks here are making sound arguments for swarm and alternatives and they are totally valid. But for an experienced engineer who needed to start their homelab back up after a long hiatus, I will never look back once for choosing k8s. Honestly some of the most fun I've had with computers in a long time and great experience for when I move into a k8s related $job.
Only?
I have had a home server for fifteen years and used to have a homemade router. That's significantly more time than I have ever spent on them. I don't even bother maintaining scripts for my home installation. I have reinstalled it once in the past decade and it took me significantly less time than writing said scripts would have. There was enough things I wanted to do differently that any scripts would have been useless by that point anyway.
At that point, it sounds more like a hobby than something saving you time.
That's not my experience at all. Plenty of web apps for self hosting are pretty simple. You just install the packet, read the config files, turn on and off what you need and you are good to go. Since systemd made that easy, most apps now come preconfigured to use a dedicated users and drop the capabilities they don't need. If they don't, you are two lines aways from doing it in their service file.
Then I just throw Caddy in front of everything I want to access from outside my local network and call it a day.
Or perhaps one of the lightweight ones, like K3s ( https://k3s.io/ ) or k0s ( https://k0sproject.io/ )?
Maybe a turnkey one, like RKE ( https://rancher.com/products/rke/ )?
Or did you use something like kubespray ( https://kubespray.io/#/ ) to create a cluster in a semi automated fashion?
Alternatively, perhaps you built your cluster from scratch or maybe used kubeadm ( https://kubernetes.io/docs/setup/production-environment/tool... ) and simply got lucky?
Out of all of those, my experiences have only been positive with K3s (though i haven't tried k0s) and RKE, especially when using the latter with Rancher ( https://rancher.com/ ) or when using the former with Portainer ( https://www.portainer.io/solutions ).
In most of the other cases, i've run into a variety of problems:
- different networking implementations that work inconsistently ( https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/cluster-administration/addons/#networking-and-network-policy )
- general problems with networking, communication between nodes, and certain node components refusing to talk to others and thus nodes not allowing anything to be scheduled on them
- large CPU/RAM resource usage for even small clusters, which is unfortunate, given that i'm too poor to afford lots of either
- no overprovisioning support (when i last tried), leading to pods not being scheduled on nodes when there's plenty of resources available, due to unnecessary reservations
- problems with PVCs and storing data in host directories, like how Docker has bind mounts with few to no issues
- also, they recently stopped supporting the Docker shim and now you have to use containerd, which is unfortunate from a debugging perspective (since a lot of people out there actually like Docker CLI)
That said, when i compared the RAM usage of Docker Swarm with that of K3s, the picture was far better! My current approach is to introduce clients and companies to containers in the following fashion, if they don't use the cloud vendors: Docker --> Docker Compose --> Docker Swarm --> (check if there's need for more functionality) --> K3s.
The beautiful think is that because of the OCI standard you can choose where and how to run your app, as well as use tools like Kompose to make migration very easy: https://kompose.io/
This is the real value of Kubernetes. I'm at my fourth kubernetes shop and the deployments, service, ingress, pod specs all look largely the same. From an operations standpoint the actual production system looks the same, the only difference between companies is how the deployments are updated and what triggers the container build and how fast they're growing. Giant development/engineering systems went from very specialized, highly complex systems, to a mundane, even boring part of the company. Infrastructure should be boring, and it should be easy to hire for these roles. That's what Kubernetes does.
Oh, and it scales too, but I'd say 95% of companies running their workloads on k8s don't need the scaling it is capable of.
You're no more right or wrong here than anyone else is.
It's not like cert-manager does rocket science that is possible only on k8s
> Why not have ingress intrinsically linked to the underlying reaources like k8s does? Your suggestion means that someone needs to come up with a methodology and automation to update ingress with Swarm. Yeah, it's obviously possible but imo, Traefik ingress reaources are way easier to manage with config spread across far fewer places.
Traefik can provide a lightweight ingress for Docker Swarm clusters alongside ensuring most of the certificate related functionality that you might want for web apps: https://traefik.io/
In particular, here's an example of using it with Docker Swarm: https://dockerswarm.rocks/traefik/
It integrates well enough that you can set up listening for particular ports, domain names, set up basicauth, use Let's Encrypt for certificates and do many other things with labels inside of your Docker Compose file!
> Storage.. I have an nfs storage provider in k8s which allows me to dynamically create storage with lifecycle management included... for free... just because I'm using k8s.
Docker also supports volume plugins, some of which were carried out of the base offering not to create needless bloat (much like what K3s does with many other in tree plugins of the heavyweight Kubernetes distros): https://docs.docker.com/engine/extend/plugins_volume/
Here's a pretty good documentation page on how to set them up and use them: https://docs.docker.com/storage/volumes/#share-data-among-ma...
You'll find examples of SSHFS, NFS, CIFS/Samba there, which should cover most base use cases. The latter two are supported by the default "local" driver (which feels like a naming failure on their part), so it's safe to say that Docker and Docker Swarm support both NFS and CIFS/Samba out of the box.
> DR as in something happens to my house or other technical issues which bring down my cluster. I would posit that it's much easier for me to restore a cluster because it's all yaml and imo more descriptive and capable than swarm yaml syntax.
I'm afraid i don't follow here.
Here's how you set up a cluster: https://docs.docker.com/engine/swarm/swarm-tutorial/create-s...
There are also commands for managing nodes within the Swarm: https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/commandline/node/
There are also commands for managing the stacks that are deployed: https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/commandline/stack/
That's literally it. Verbose YAML doesn't imply any additional quality. If you want, feel free to look at the Compose specification too see all of the supported options: https://docs.docker.com/compose/compose-file/compose-file-v3...
With Swarm, i've actually found that it's actually very easy to both manage the cluster, resolve any issues (because of very few moving parts), or even just wipe it all and create it anew with all of the deployments in a few commands. Furthermore, there is a very lovely Ansible Swarm module if you'd like: https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/collections/communit...
In short, fewer moving parts equal easier administration and fewer Byzantine failures in this case.
> I think you get my point. Yes, you can do it all with Swarm but with things like k3s and k0s, it's just as easy to start using k8s. And way more help, docs, and tooling to boot.
K3s and other projects like it are a step in the right direction for Kubernetes in smaller deployments! That said, in my experience, the documentation of Docker Swarm is comparatively better to that of many of the Kubernetes distro projects, simply because of how mature and stable Docker and Docker Swarm both are.
I don't doubt that the situation will change in a few years, but until then, Swarm is more than enough.
My problem with swarm is that the overlay networking was super flaky. Dead containers still being registered on the network cause every X requests to fail (since it’s round robin) because it’s routing to an overlay IP that doesn’t exist.
Further, I could never find storage adapters for cloud storage that continued to be maintained. Rexray was the longest standing but hasn’t had a commit since Jan 2019.
I will say that it's still a fair amount of complexity, but it's a workable amount of complexity on a day-to-day basis.
I run bitwarden, syncthing, transmission etc. on a single box at home and this setup works great.
Overall, though: Traefik proxying to Docker Containers has been _very_ smooth in my Homelab: I'm loving it.
Borg is great if you have Google problems. K8s is not Borg.
That said, if your tooling or products or software supports kubernetes, which a lot more are these days, then it becomes a lot easier. A lot of companies these days are saying "Here's how to install it, or just grab this helm chart"; Gitlab, for example. We even had one piece of software we were testing which only had two options: cloud-hosted, or self-hosted on k8s. Nothing else was supported.
k8s doesn't seem to be any easier to configure, with the possible exception of microk8s (which has its own issues), but the amount of things you can do with it once it's up and running is compelling.
Swarm might be great, but the ecosystem around k8s is massive. So my two choices are: ignore Docker entirely and do it like I've always done (Heroku, chef, puppet, etc. just managing my servers myself), or buy into containers and go with K8S.
To that extent, I only ever deal with K8S at work, and for my personal stuff I don't go near Docker at all. Why would I when I can get an 8GB/4CPU VPS for $9/mo and serve everything I care about from that? I've got fail2ban, systemd, caddy, and plenty of resources.
I can host mysql on the same machine because there isn't a god-given law about hosting your DB on a separate box. Same with anything else.
No need for Docker or Swarm or K8s.
I ignore docker myself. It's been too unstable for me and historically just costs me time, I'd rather just use systemd on a VPS. Occasionally when someone else has setup a complex system in docker I want to play with it has been convenient. Still, I avoid installing it at all.
Did you read the article? It was about a company struggling to monetize an open source project. It hardly seems time for teenagerish M$-Windows asides on how you don't like people monetizing the software they are giving you for free.
Except that they didn't. With even a little bit of research you can easily find out that they made skipping updates a paid feature, and then even removed that after negative feedback!
People were even talking about downgrading below the version that introduced the 'paid update skipping', so any way you look at it, your comment doesn't make any sense.
This is exactly why I think new-cloud companies like fly.io, stackpath, deno.land, vercel.app are the future. No one wants to deal with muck if they can avoid it.
Cloud exposed data center primitives. Then, cloud-native laid bare the at-scale primitives. Imho, I think the industry is ripe for both NoCloud and NewCloud.
- pick up Swarm or Nomad now, and then potentially be blamed for the expensive and costly migration to k8s - pick up k8s now, waste the time of your (voiceless) devs and ops on an overengineered solution, but retain access to the larger pool of technologies and a smooth upgrade path should the need arise
Not to mention that you end up scaling to a size where k8s is a sound solution, that "costly" migration is going to be a rounding error on your balance sheet
This. Just because your services are containerized doesn't mean they'll scale well with each order of magnitude. Likely you'll need to re-architect other parts of the system to work at your new scale.
The kind of reasoning you pose is similar to "SQL doesn't scale to infinity, so start with an infinitely scalable eventually consistent document store". This line of thinking is dangerous to most companies, and often the death of startups. Assume YAGNI.
There's some truth to "Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM", but IBM was never a good choice for anyone except consultants. k8s isn't too far from that.
Anyone can leann k8s basic principles in a day or 2. And managing a cluster is arguably easier than managing a typical bunch of EX2 instances+ALB etc that almost everyone uses.
k8s also has the advantage of ubiquity. If I had to manage a bunch of containers on a cluster with > 10 nodes, I'd pick k8s over swarm/nomad etc.
Your argument is 'k8s isn't a good choice for anyone except Google-scale' and I don't think thats true at all.
As someone who has actively avoided k8s (despite enjoying devops), my observation has been quite the opposite. At my current (small) org we have one devops guy who spends all day working on k8s related work (configuration, troubleshooting, automation, etc.) And we're about to start looking for another devops engineer because he's swamped. We only have a handful of clusters up and running so far.
k8s is the poster child for overcomplicating matters for folks that don't have Google-scale problems.
There are problems that people run into. One is not needing more than one computer -- if everything you need to run fits on one computer, you might as well use systemd as your orchestrator. (Which people also say is overly complicated, but really it's just extremely misunderstood.) The other is not understanding Kubernetes enough. A lot of people just explode random helm charts into their cluster and are mad that it's hard to maintain. Basically, adding another abstraction layer only helps if you can debug the actual thing on the surface -- otherwise, you're just setting a time bomb for yourself. (And, helm charts require you beg the maintainers for every feature you could possibly need, and once enough people have done that you just have raw k8s manifests where everything is called some random word instead of its actual thing. Really bad. Use Kustomize or jsonnet!)
ECS isn't exactly simple either, but it is manageable for small shops where the developer is the devops guy.
Kubernetes has a serious growth ceiling - way below what Nomad has. So if you actually have a problem of interesting scale, it's almost certainly "pick Nomad now, or get blamed for a costly migration later when you realise that Kubernetes is not for you".
- deploying k8s on bare metal is not easy. It was never really designed for this and to be fair Google has a vested interest in making you use GCP. EKS is nothing more than cobbled together scripts and you still need to do a lot of manual work
- k8s introduces a ton of terminology and new concepts (pods/service/deployment/ingress) not to mention the whole host of addons built on top like Istio.
It shouldn't take any decent dev more than a couple days to install minikube/k3s or use a cloud provider, play around and get comfortable with k8s.
It is very simple to spin a minimal distro based cluster. It is relatively simple to have it up and running your solution. Sure getting Kubernetes from the source and tailoring all the required components to run cluster with full HA etc' is a complex stuff, but building a private cloud based on vanilla Kubernetes isn't the only or the most common use case.
Kubernetes is for a lot of organisations pretty difficult and way too much for a start. We used rancher for solving our problems which did a fine job, rancher got a worse when they made the move to Kubernetes.
In the beginning they (docker) also removed a lot of options like cpu throttling and configuration and such that LXC had from the start. They also had their own version (a shim) of pid 1, some point at the time. And other things that made it a little painful to properly containerise. I was often very frustrated by docker and fell back on lxc.
There was also something with the management of docker images like pruning and cleaning and other of much needed functionality that just didn't get included.
Also something with the container registries which I a this point can't remember (maybe deleting images or authentication out of the box or something that made it hard to host yourself).
Anyway I think it's failed because it failed to listen to its users and act upon them. They really had a lot of chances I think. I think they just made some wrong business decisions. I always felt they had a strong technical CTO that really was deep on the product but not on the whole pipeline from dev->x->prod workflows.
(Early Rancher employee)
We liked our Cattle orchestration and ease of use of 1.x as much as the next person. Hell, I still like a lot of it better.
But just as this article talks about with Swarm, embracing K8s was absolutely the right move. We were the smallest of at least 4 major choices.
Picking the right horse early enough and making K8s easier to use led us to a successful exit and continued relevance (now in SUSE) instead of a slow painful spiral to irrelevance like Swarm, Mesos, and others and eventual fire-sale.
K8s and devops has destroyed us developers' productivity, confidence, and morale.
To me what killed Swarm is Google needing to spread k8s.
If you are eyeing at GCE but decide you want a bit more flexibility, going for a Google backed solution gives you k8s, and Swarm isn’t even on the choice list.
Choosing a third party means you’re on your own to bootstrap/make it live, or contract a vendor that might not live longer than you. That’s fine for companies who strategically choose to invest for the long term, sadly that’s not most of the companies out there.
Does it?
It seems like there are three kinds of complexity involved here: the essential complexity of the total problem set, the essential complexity of a specific company's problems, and the amount of complexity experienced by a user as they try to solve those problems.
Let's stipulate that Kubernetes needs to be that complicated for Google's needs. I'm not totally sure that's true, but let's pretend for now. So we'll say you're right for the first kind.
But I'm still not seeing it for the other two.
For modest deployment efforts, Kubernetes is a giant pain in the ass. It's just way more complicated than needed for many non-Google use cases. I tried setting up Kubernetes for a bunch of personal stuff I run and it was egregious overkill. I persisted until my home lighting system went dark because some internal Kubernetes keys expired and it decided that just not working was a good failure mode. Last time I mentioned this on HN several people said, well duh, obviously you shouldn't run it just for yourself. And that's fine; every technology has an expected operational envelope. But there are an awful lot of projects out there that have between 0.0 and 0.5 sysadmins. For them it's too complex. Kubernetes is just too complex for many people's needs.
And the other side of that is complexity of experience. Modern processors are fantastically complicated. I'm on a mailing list for people in finance who micro-optimize everything to maximize response speed. Those people know incredible amounts about exactly what different processors do. And they have to. But most working developers know about 1% of that because a lot of people work very hard to hide the complexity from them. I don't think that really happened with Kubernetes.
At this point, it is what it is. It's much easier to scale a technology up than down, so I expect it'll always be like this. But For whatever comes after Kubernetes, I'd like to see much more attention paid to more common use cases.
I don't know that if Swarm had those features if it would really catch on like Kubernetes did. They didn't have the same budget as Google on that side of things.
I also clearly remember the multiple high profile spats that 'shykes had on HN which burned a lot of bridges. At the time he had a reputation for answering lots of questions on HN which helped a lot with community building. After those bridges were burned there was no one to speak for Docker as the developer mindsets shifted slowly towards Kubernetes. IIRC the Github PRs were also a source of contention as dotCloud corporatised.
To be fair, Kubernetes was a real slog to understand at the start and had a lot of competition; it was definitely not the same level of simple, direct technical solution that Docker was.
Interesting trip down memory lane and what a pivotal technology! Regardless of the rest Docker is a true cultural phenomenon and a testament to the insight of the creators working outside of the myopia of big tech.
Speaking personally, the fate of Docker, Inc. was clear to me when they took their $40M Series C round in 2014. I had met with Solomon in April 2014 (after their $15M Series B) and tried to tell him what I had learned at Joyent: that raising a ton of money without having a concrete and repeatable business would almost inevitably lead to poor decision making. I could see that I was being too abstract, so I distilled it -- and I more or less begged him to not take any more money. (Sadly, Silicon Valley's superlative, must-watch "Sand Hill Shuffle" episode[1] would not air until 2015, or I would have pointed him to it.) When they took the $40M round -- which was an absolutely outrageous amount of capital to take into a company that didn't even have a conception of what they would possibly sell -- the future was clear to me. I wasn't at all surprised when the SVP washouts from the likes of VMware and IBM landed at Docker -- though still somehow disappointed when they behaved predictably, accelerating the demise of the company. May Docker, Inc. at least become a business school case study to warn future generations of an avoidable fate!
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8682525
[1] https://www.hbo.com/silicon-valley/season-02/1-sand-hill-shu...
Docker went to war with the standard Linux init system and the kernel developers who maintained cgroups, their core system primitive. I don't really understand how that was supposed to work out.
Would that be the conference where Jessie Frazelle wore this telling gem of a troll badge? [0] If so, the parent article [1] says it was 2015.
I was actually present at CoreOS during this period, and played a significant role in the early rkt releases. There's no prominent memory of timing the announcement to coincide with Docker people being on a plane, I think we were just rushing to get it out by dockercon and the en route thing is a coincidence. Rkt didn't just appear out of nowhere overnight, we had to build it and making something like that actually work reliably as a standalone executable without installing a daemon on arbitrary distros is a bit of a chore.
If the Docker folks hadn't deliberately obstructed our ability to reliably run Docker containers as systemd services, none of this would have been necessary. We certainly had better things to spend our time on.
Was it because Red Hat was already pushing podman and didn't need two tools doing similar things?
What I can say is there was a lot of change in the container landscape at the time. Kubernetes flipped the script, Fleet from CoreOS was deprecated, and my guess is amidst the consolidation happening around Kubernetes and the CNCF, rkt became less relevant and just didn't find a permanent home.
Flannel, Fleet, Rocket... does anyone use any of this stuff still? "Move fast and break things" tends to leave a trail of waste in its wake.
Without a clear idea of what specifically you need to spend money on, and how specifically you are going to spend that money to generate growth and value, taking money is a bad idea. And if the answer to that question is "so that we can keep paying our developers", then you're probably already doomed.
This for me is one of those "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills" lessons. It seems so obvious to me, and I hesitate to even estimate the vast amount of cash wasted in the last decade like this. But it's a lesson that an awful lot of people seem to insist on learning for themselves. Or not!
> Craig McLuckie, Kubernetes cofounder and now vice president at VMware, says he offered to donate Kubernetes to Docker, but the two sides couldn’t come to an agreement. “There was a mutual element of hubris there, from them that we didn’t understand developer experience, but the reciprocal feeling was these young upstarts really don’t understand distributed systems management,” he told InfoWorld.
The article criticizes Docker Swarm as myopic, but IMO, there were only two possibilities for Docker to move forward; either they acquired Kubernetes, which was a possibility in this telling of events, or they won with their own Docker Swarm.
I am wondering if anyone ever actually properly used docker swarm in any proper way? Especially as a small-scale developer.
Swarm was good, easy to set up and run, but it had a lot of networking bugs. More than once we had to cycle the docker daemon on all machines which basically resulted in a rolling outage.
We’re trialling nomad at our new co, I was put off by the opaqueness and complexity of K8s, but apparently that’s just me.
The only changes that they really rolled out were replacing the older, perfectly functional UI with something superficially shinier but much, much harder to use.
Not only was it just hard to see what you wanted to see once they'd halved the information density and got rid of any visual hierarchy, you had absolutely crazy things like a slider for the number of instances of a service that would instantly apply with no confirmation and, even crazier, responded to the scroll wheel. We once doubled our number of production pods and didn't notice for a few hours, because someone scrolled up the page and their cursor went over the slider. Lucky they weren't scrolling the other way.
Anyway, I lost a lot of trust in Docker as an organisation that knows what people value about their products as a part of that.
At least, the founders of Docker are honest and clear in my opinion:
<< Hykes disagrees with this assessment. “I think that is wrong and generally speaking the core open source product created massive growth which created the opportunity to monetize in the first place,” he said. “Lots of companies monetize Docker successfully, just not Docker. There was plenty to monetize, just Docker failed to execute on monetizing it.>>
There is still a thing that is missing there: the article let think that docker was an innovation out of nowhere and they had an unique idea that was kind of spoiled.
But, one has to remember the context of the period when Docker was created:
It was a time were cgroups and "namespaces" of network, process, ... were the hot new things inside the Linux and everyone was thinking about the concept of "container", one way or another.
There were already chroots and a lot of persons were already working on "app"/"module"/"package" systems using aufs/overlaysfs layers.
So, this was the moment and a few competitor were emerging like lxc and docker. Docker was very good to take the of the media cover and hype and so to become the dominant way to have "containers". But, at the beginning, there was nothing particular in the technology and lots of competitors could have done it if it was not Docker.
Really, Docker's innovation wasn't the ability to run processes in a container (as mentioned before, that technology had existed for years already); it was the Dockerfile and the Docker hub/container registry. Prior to Docker, the way you'd build a container was by running debootstrap or unpacking a tarball/zip file of a root image. Take a look at https://developer.ibm.com/tutorials/l-lxc-containers/ . As far as I recall, there was no LXC equivalent to `docker build` or the registry except maybe wiring up Packer or home-grown shell script and throwing a tarball in S3 or something.
What made Docker really explode was when it ran on Mac and Windows. The cloud runs on Linux, but desktop computers generally don't, mostly for cultural reasons.
This made for an explosive combination. There are probably similarities to Github here.
> Red Hat specifically “weren’t part of the community, they never rooted for the success of the Docker,” he said. “The mistake on our end was desperately wanting them to be part of the community. In retrospect we would never have benefited from that partnership.”
I understand how it seemed like other open source companies were dictating terms, but Docker's implementation was crap: one fat daemon running as root, no sandboxing, no cryptographic signatures, and a total lack of integration with the rest of Linux. Red Hat gets to define how containers should work on the back end because it pays for ~7% of all kernel development (compare that to Canonical's ~1%) [0]. But instead of cooperating with others in the Linux ecosystem, Docker only begrudgingly adopted interoperable standards while Red Hat, CoreOS, Intel, and others implemented fundamentally better solutions.
> We didn’t work at Google, we didn’t go to Stanford, we didn’t have a PhD in computer science. Some people felt like it was theirs to do, so there was a battle of egos. ... Kubernetes was so early and one of dozens and we didn’t magically guess that it would dominate.
Google had experience running containers at scale and was using K8s as an opportunity to retool their internal proprietary solution. It sounds to me that Google engineers tried to explain to less experienced team the best path forward ... and Docker took it as an insult.
Sure, not everyone needs all the features of K8s, but Docker could have built a simpler interface on top of K8s and benefited from Google's investment. Instead they built a half-baked competitor that didn't work well. Whoops!
Docker delivered a slick developer UX but their architecture was antithetical to how Linux developers thought it should work. Then they spurned offers of help from both the hyperscalers and the dominate Linux enterprise vendor [1] and chose to build inferior solutions for those markets. Now they are stuck selling their pretty UI because that's the only thing Docker does fundamentally better than anyone else.
[0]: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/linux-ker...
[1]: https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hat-continues-lead-linux-....
Unfortunately they couldn't make docker into a product (or they would have faced the wrath of the OSS community) so they probably felt stripped for time on both docker and on swarm, which made for an unpolished experience.
I've been using swarm for a small project for funz and because I didn't want to run the full k8s (even k0s or k3s would have been heavy for my use case) and because I had bad experiences with nomad.
My list of complaints: - Stacks are not working 1-1 with Compose - docker machine is a separate binary - You can't pull the latest of a docker image or the cache hit will just fail to redeploy your changes (you're forced to do a sort of blue-green deployment or just update a tag everytime) - You have to configure, run, garbage collect a registry from scratch - docker-flow-proxy should be included out of the box - I need a way to integrate secrets
Don't get me wrong, there's an amazing amount of progress in docker swarm (and I'm running it in production, for free, on a 5$ machine). Years ago it was even worse but it's not something I would ever recommend to my employer. I hope we'll get there eventually.
It's too bad they didn't make the business side of things work, though I agree that at the time there was a certain feeling of too much money chasing an uncertain future for an open source project. I hope this next iteration of the company works out for them.
What are you waiting for, is there something new in the works wrt swarm? I was a swarm fan early on(and secretly still am), but otherwise k8s is where I spend all my time at work.
Docker, the kabillion dollar company, never had a chance. We all recognize the potential and actual problems when some very crucial piece of infrastructure is only free/open source and not maintained -- but this is what happens when it is "overmaintained" I.e. it makes sense to invest big in something that is good and could be crucial; but only if you can both keep up quality AND stave off competitors -- and in this case, competitors aren't just other companies, but free software in general. It's kind of funny, in a way, Docker made itself a target for "good competition" by being so visible, in a way that e.g. "curl" didn't.
Either way, I always knew "Docker the kabillion dollar company" was a stupid stupid bet. Small company, great bet. But this? Destined to fail.
Anyway they are past the point of no return now. Their creations will undoubtedly outlive them - probably Queen Elizabeth also. Anything they pull back will be replaced by the community. Anything new will get aped by everyone else trying to make a name for themselves. Containers are more or less a generic commodity now.
Of course when it comes to distributed environments I'm sure Kubernetes still reigns supreme, but for relatively simple container setups I don't think there's a need to even run Docker anymore on Linux.
Obviously, I'm still not well versed in containers so this might all be overlooking something.
Heck, I use plain old docker-compose to manage production servers with half a dozen containers, trouble-free for a few years now. Compose v2 seems promising, I've been using it for a while and it's pretty stable too.
Swarm could have been an industry in itself, a de-facto standard for orchestration if it had been marketed and supported right. It was a lot more stable than Kubernetes in the early days and things just worked with docker while you'd have to kludge a few things to get Kubernetes doing its thing right.
One such scenario that I've seen is companies running multi-tenancy services where clients don't share the same databases, apps, etc.. K8s might be too much.
That's our situation soon. We're about to start migrating away from a desktop win32 application.
Any good deployment options for such a scenario?
We're talking 4-500 customers with their own db, less than 10k users. On-premise installation must be possible (though "give us a VM" is what we currently do, so that might not be to different).
You could use the same templates to deploy both the vendor-hosted and customer-hosted version of the app.
The physical architecture can be anything. A single container, the PaaS App Service, VMs, etc...
Honestly, managing on-prem VM is actually one of the easiest thing to do in my experience if the entire architecture is in a single bundle.
For the rest of your customers, you can still run K8s. If you aren't concern about scaling, then run webapp + db in a single pod. This is somewhat of an anti-pattern because it changes your ability to scale. If you do want to scale for an individual customer, then move db into its own pod, and then connect to it from your webapp.
Personally, I would rather run your ephemeral load such as webapp in K8s, then run databases on VMs to make it a bit easier to manage.
Yes, this is most likely the architecture we'll go for, maybe with a few microservices.
I had suspected all we needed was docker compose, so good to know I'm on the right track.
Thank you all for the feedback, very much appreciated.
If I were at the helm of Docker today, I'd focus on Enterprise customers. Provide an on-prem version of DockerHub and you'll convince thousands of companies tired of Artifactory to switch immediately. Don't get me wrong Artifactory is pretty nice, but it's a bear to run at scale on an enterprise level. DockerHub already is handling that traffic, so there's no reason to think they can't port that to an on-prem offering.
I actually got an AWS ad on the same page while reading this comment. It's definitely hard to compete when your competitors(with lot of capital) can easily integrate your tech into theirs in no time.
if they had just released a chroot database runner, would have been as good as what they did
it has never been good at build or deployment. it has definitely never been good at cloud. even kube is still awful at most things
these systems have never been sure if they're configuration languages, buildsystems, plugin hosts, or operating systems, and so they've been bad at all 4
Containerization's value proposition isn't really the isolation part. That's nice and all, but it's not their main selling point.
The main selling point of containers is the fact that they solve the problems of packaging, deploying applications, and configuration, and they do so in a perfectly auditable and observable way.
Deployment covers a ton of problems including resource allocation, traffic routing, discoverability, health checks, secrets management and heaps more. Containerisation just provides a unit of management.
I work in Go which has great backwards compatibility, builds static binaries, and since //go:embed you can release a single binary containing literally all resources needed to run an application.
We don’t technically need to use docker to deploy our services but we still need an orchestration platform.
Ironically given the discussion, we’ve chosen nomad over K8s, but nevertheless we needed something, and “backwards compatibility” didn’t really even register.
We have about 4300 containers in production where I work (at this moment - it can change from hour to hour), and I don't believe "isolated environments that need different versions of libraries" was ever a driver, or even strong incentive for using containers.
Rather - the ability to rapidly add resources, resize resources, re-allocate storage performance dynamically, and use whichever cloud provider made sense (we've worked with AWS, Google Cloud, and now Azure) - and be able to migrate your environments between them in a period of a week - was what made containerization attractive.
Being able to type:
kubectl scale deploy worker-background --replicas=300
If you've ever worked at a large company - think of the effort required to get 300 new 6 CPU/32 GB VMs allocated to a project you are working on. Now consider a company where pretty much all of the engineering / ops employees can do that from the bash prompt.
I'm just looking forward to the day where we can scale the performance of our storage from 500 IOPS/sec to 8K IOPS/sec dynamically as required (still requires a manual step with Azure - albeit a pretty straightforward one in their portal).
The cycle goes like this:
"A mainframe takes too long to buy, it's too expensive!"
"Here, have an LPAR, you can spin one up in seconds!"
"Wooaa there! You can't just do whatever you want, fill in this paperwork to get an LPAR!"
"Getting an LPAR approved takes too much paperwork!"
"Here, have an Intel server instead! It's not a 'proper' machine, but you can have it in a week!"
"Wooaa there! You can't just do whatever you want, fill in this paperwork to get a new server provisioned properly!"
"Getting a server provisioning approved takes too much paperwork!"
"Here, have a VMware virtual server instead! It's not a 'proper' machine, but you can have it in a day!"
"Wooaa there! You can't just do whatever you want, fill in this paperwork to get a new VM provisioned properly!"
"Getting the VM provisioning approved takes too much paperwork!"
"Here, have a Cloud server instead! It's not a 'proper' machine, but you can have it in minutes!"
"Wooaa there! You can't just do whatever you want, fill in this paperwork to get a new cloud IaaS VM provisioned properly!"
"Getting cloud IaaS VM provisioning approved takes too much paperwork!"
"Here, have a Kubernetes Namespace instead! It's not a 'proper' machine, but you can have it in minutes!" <-- you are here.I ran an IT organization that had VMware so I've been on that side - but, once again, employees could never spin up their own stuff, and requesting a new one was never a day, usually took a week or so. And I've worked on customer sites where it was a month+ to get VMs provisioned.
So, despite never having worked at companies as enlightened about empowering engineers to do stuff like you have - your entire analysis has a pretty solid grain of truth, and with $2mm+ in cloud costs at the current gig - we may be entering the "Wooaa there" stage of the cycle, but, I don't ever recall having a toolset that was globally available that let people scale up pods/deploy namespaces the way we do here. We have the ability for engineers to clone an entire customer environment, databases and all, do their work on it, issue a PR, and shut down the clone in a period of 24 hours - and this happens a hundred+ times/month. An engineer interested in working in the latest release is a single click (plus filling in a couple fields around names/labels/release) + 3 minutes 30 seconds away from having a complete build of our current app deployed on 12 containers. I don't think any of the earlier cycles had that flexibility.
Also - when I look at the costs - honestly, the engineering environments are essentially round-off error compared to the full scale multi-terabyte, 500+ container customer environments - so empowering them to do all these things has essentially zero real cost impact.
So - while I think there is some fundamental insight into what you are saying - and I genuinely appreciate it - I think the flexibility / velocity of k8s container management / deployment (particularly around the dynamic resizing of CPU/Memory + replica count) was as readily available as it is now - though, I'm guessing an SRE qualified on Vsphere could jump in right now and tell me everything on K8S was always available in virtualization if you had the right tooling...
Does cause one to think what the next cycle will entail though...
I've just spent a couple of years doing various small projects in AWS and Azure. They're... okay. Good, but not great. Proprietary. Closed-source. Etc, etc...
All of that makes me suspect that eventually the cloud will be commoditized and end up being based on a common standard. Kubernetes may or may not become that standard. It certainly feels like the early days of POSIX and Linux starting to slowly take over the proprietary Solaris, HP-UX, and SCO Unix shops.
Something to note is the Kubernetes is already a cloud-within-a-cloud. It has reinvented half of the commonly used Azure/AWS components: Resource groups, storage management, monitoring, naming, tagging, DNS, IP allocation, etc...
Why should I define my resources in Azure, and then again in Kubernetes?
You can see where this is leading: new cloud providers will appear, and they will be Kubernetes only. Instead of proprietary template languages, simply upload your helm chart instead. No complex virtual networking, just use IPv6 and let Kubernetes take care of the rest.
I'm just wondering what comes after k8s itself - though I suspect we're looking at a minimum 15-20 year runway.
I found this passage interesting. Are these tensions common?
It’s quite an American attitude to judge your entire life and skills solely based on the college you went to. I didn’t encounter such attitude with my fellow European and Australian colleagues.
Nowadays, I don’t care that much because I’m not the little, defenseless, graduate student I was, and I do enjoy bringing a Google-Standford-Californian down to earth when they are bragging about something they have no idea about.
Elitist assholes definitely exist everywhere, but in my experience a lot of what I viewed as "showing off" when I was younger was really just "being normal" for a different "normal". When a 25-year-old software developer talks all the time about Stanford and Lambos, he's not trying to show off, he's just talking about what he knows, just like the guy talking about tail-gating at <insert SEC school here> and then going four-wheeling all the time.
I don't want to devalue experience and education in any way; those things have value! But time is linear and the past has happened -- you just have to move forward with what you have and go after what you want, and don't get distracted by the fact that others started out with a lot more than you. I double-pinky-promise you that if you are good at something, keep getting better at it, and aren't an asshole yourself, you can work at any company you want. :-)
(In some case, it really happens to be true)
Amusingly, except the "work at Google"-part, Joe and Craig don't have those other qualifications either. Brendan did get a PhD and was even a professor, but I dunno, he gave up on that.
Solomon's "outsider" comment is ironic since multiple of us in the room from Docker did, in fact, formerly work at Google and go to Stanford. He walked into that room assuming Google would have those prejudices and that's all he could see.
Programmers hate things that are easy to use (by the way I am a programmer, and no I don't feel that way) because if they admit they use them then they might be accused of being users. And of course no programmer will admit this. They don't realize it because it's actually a subconscious psychological issue.
And so what programmers started to do was immediately make it much more complicated and at the same time, take it completely for granted. It was so useful it was like a floor to walk on. And so people started giving it the same level of respect they give a floor.
So for those reasons, Docker became very uncool. But at the same time it was incredibly useful. Solution: make something just like Docker but not Docker, which hip people will be allowed to use without any shame. Make it a bit more complicated and only run on the cool expensive hardware.