76 karma · joined April 22, 2014
Think about why all public clouds are built with virtualization technology. Multi-tenants require strong isolation, which virtualization promises. Therefore, if we could get strong isolation in container, we can build public cloud with container.
Disclosure: I work at Hyper.sh
Part of the reason we chose to open source is that we want the community to innovate. We are continuing to build the feature set, however I need to say that the workflow varies from app to app. Therefore, by providing the base building block and allowing others to create different solutions, we could enable more options to the market.
I'm one of cofounders of Hyper. Thanks for mentioning us!
I think both ECS and GKE are valid options their segment. Things like ACI and Hyper.sh is more of a container-native IaaS. The on-demand event-driven compute infra is a perfect use case, but it also works for long-running workload (k8s pool), where the difference is that developers only need to consume the k8s api, not the software itself.
The vision is to merge PaaS into IaaS, e.g. a microservice-native cloud. I want to ask more details of the upper-layer features you imagine. Thanks!
I'd like to keep in touch. Could you drop a message to peng at hyper.sh? Thanks.
Kind of similar to LB+ReplicationSet in K8S, not automated scaling yet. But will do.
PS: I work at Hyper.sh
Also, I just want to share our public roadmap: https://trello.com/b/7fEwaPRd/roadmap. Feel free to comment. It actually helps a lot for us to prioritize. Thanks!
2. In a few months
3. TBD
4. Yes, we are looking to expand the DC and add more options.
BTW, our public roadmap: https://trello.com/b/7fEwaPRd/roadmap
PS: I'm the founder :)
Yes, NYC and Europe are our next step. Probably Frankfurt or Amsterdam.
1. Yes, our SW is open sourced: github.com/hyperhq 2. Not really, Hypercontainer runs on bare-metal, as it uses hypervisors (KVM, Xen) underneath.
Founder is here.
I'd that they are both trying to solve the container hosting issues, but with very different approaches.
Docker Cloud = VM cluster + Swarm, meaning that it is essentially a managed VM service. For developers, Docker Cloud creates the cluster on other cloud providers, and manage the cluster to deploy containers for you. In other words, you can focus on containers, the infrastructure is managed by Docker Cloud for you (of course you need to pay for that).
On the other hand, Hyper.sh is container native. You simply run containers, with worrying the cluster, not because it is managed, but that there is no cluster at all. How? Hyper.sh is built on secure Docker runtime, which is as fast as linux container, but as secure as VM. Therefore, the secure container becomes the new build block, rather than being nested in VM for isolation.
Given this, the whole cluster, capacity planning, scheduling and management thing is gone in Hyper.sh. And yes, you no longer need to pay for the cluster management.
Yes, currently no shared volume.
Yes, "hyper pull" work seamlessly with any Docker registry, public or private.
For persistent workload, Hyper_ provides the EBS-like volume, e.g. "hyper run -v vol:/path", but the volume is not local, instead it is distributed and replicated. And similar to EBS, you can create snapshots and restore to new volumes.
But, the thumb-rule is that if the startup time is a free lunch, why not faster?
Shall we call hypervisor+kernel+Docker image VM? I don't think so. It never tries to give you a complete machine, neither a full OS. Personally I like "virtualized container". But the combination of these two words might be more confusing, given that whenever you see the word "container", you think of Linux container.