Register for the iXsystems Community to get an ad-free experience and exclusive discounts in our eBay Store.

Docker on FreeNAS

Western Digital Drives - The Preferred Drives of FreeNAS and TrueNAS CORE
Status
Not open for further replies.

diskdiddler

Dedicated Sage
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
2,181
They don't conflict at all - in one point I'm talking about the Docker port to FreeBSD, which just isn't particularly capable for the reasons I outlined. The second point outlines what we are going to do (have done, are doing) instead - don't use FreeBSD docker, use Linux docker to run linux apps in Linux containers (just proxied to a boot2docker VM, since FreeNAS is obviously not based on Linux).
That's all.
So in stupid people terms (mine) that's a good thing? Vastly better compatibility?
 

Stux

Wizened Sage
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
4,163
So in stupid people terms (mine) that's a good thing? Vastly better compatibility?
Yes.

Docker is Linux. Running docker directly on FreeBSD is a hack.

Running docker on Linux on a virtual machine on FreeBSD is not a hack :)
 

diskdiddler

Dedicated Sage
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
2,181
So a linux VM running docker is effectively 'full compatibility' right?
My understanding is though, that docker packages / apps are somewhat like VMs in themselves, so we're looking at a VM within a VM, right?

Is there any implications to this? I'm going to assume the docker apps and packages will be given some kind of pass through or rights (storage, like jails?) to access the datasets and perform functions within the data, such as Plex, Sickbeard, Crashplan and what have you?


Finally, how good is the VM / Docker support in FN10? Could I run a real Windows 7 VM to perform my crashplan functionality? and just RDP into the thing to use it? or some kind of console application which presents the VM display?
 

Stux

Wizened Sage
Joined
Jun 2, 2016
Messages
4,163
They're Linux Containers. Like FreeBSD jails.
 
J

jkh

Guest
So a linux VM running docker is effectively 'full compatibility' right?
Not "effectively" full compatibility, but full compatibility period! It's the same technology used to host docker containers everywhere, including Amazon AWS Containers.
My understanding is though, that docker packages / apps are somewhat like VMs in themselves, so we're looking at a VM within a VM, right?
No. Docker containers are not VMs.
 

diskdiddler

Dedicated Sage
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
2,181
Hey thanks for the reply jkh, one thing though, I'm testing a beta right now and I clearly see "VMs" on the left, would I be right in thinking that will be removed enentually for Docker then?

or will FN10 support full VMs and Docker containers?
 
J

jkh

Guest
I clearly see "VMs" on the left, would I be right in thinking that will be removed enentually for Docker then
o_Oo_Oo_O

I think we have exchanged at least 5 messages on this topic, in this thread alone. For the last time, please: CONTAINERS ARE NOT VMs! You really need to go read up on this. They are two different things entirely and there are different scenarios in which any user might prefer one or the other. VMs are not going away. Docker containers are not going away. You keep conflating them. To use an analogy, it's like you keep asking if we're going to take NFS away because we support SMB. It just doesn't make sense. :(
 

diskdiddler

Dedicated Sage
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
2,181
I understand containers are not VM's you explained that, in your previous post.........
I'm trying to clarify if the VMs field, on the left is remaining in the final build and if VM support is included in 10, sorry but I wasn't aware it would support VMs. For some reason I thought it was one or the other.

EDIT: I just spotted the containers field below it, oooooops ok both it is, sorry :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top