Why to use RancherOS when Alpine can do the same at less cost?

[netamego]

Hi,

I have an old N40L with 8 GB RAM so my server it's very basic for FreeNAS but it do the work I need. I wanted to run pi-hole so I went through VMs menu and select Docker (witch actually is a RancherOS). The problem I see with this configuration is that requieres a minimun of 2 GB that you "steal" to ZFS moreover when pi-hole have very low requirements. Then I have installed Alpine (Virtual Edition 34 MB) in bhyve virtual machine with 256 MB RAM and works like a charm. With docker daemon, pi-hole and portainer the ram utilization it's about 150 MB. I think Alpine could be better than RancherOS as Docker HOST. What do you think?

Thanks.

 

[diskdiddler]

It's all being removed regardless, you'll need to run a manual VM in the future anyhow.
How reliable are you finding Docker on an N40L? you're brave, I refused to run VMs on my N54L - it started to get flakey when I threw a LOT at it.

 

[sretalla]

Docker isn't ideal for a single app/container as you have clearly identified.

It makes sense to have docker when you run multiple apps/containers.

I understand the RancherOS is working on the bug that mandates 2GB to start the OS, so it would go down to 1GB eventually (as it was in the past). This doesn't change the above.

 

[fracai]

It's all being removed regardless, you'll need to run a manual VM in the future anyhow.

Whoa, is this documented or discussed somewhere? I mean, I'm not actually using Docker, but I try to stay on top of FreeNAS developments and I haven't heard this one. Thanks for any pointers.

 

[sretalla]

The docker host option isn't really substaintially different to a VM other than the Grub boot and option to set the password for RancherOS.

I can do all that myself as long as I get the grub boot option I presume is required by RancherOS to boot in Bhyve.

For the better, it would seem to eliminate the pain-point of being unable to update RancherOS versions.

It is nice to be able to spin a new docker VM in 2 minutes with little configuration work needed.

 

[Jurgen Segaert]

Remove RancherOS and add Grub boot loader support: https://redmine.ixsystems.com/issues/78843

 

[SavageAUS]

So by the sounds of it all the trials and testing I have done recently to get rancher working (which it still isn’t) has been for naught? As they are going to remove it? And I for one won’t stay on an old version just for one feature. So it’s best now to spin up a Ubuntu? VM or something else? And install docker and go from there?

 

[sretalla]

RancherOS will still be an option as far as I can see, you just won't have an automated install as is currently available (but locks you to the FreeNAS selected version). I would still continue with it as I see the value offered in Rancher... although you can manage containers with Rancher Server on a number of different docker host OSes like debian in addition to RancherOS itself that don't need GRUB boot, so you can start on that now if you'd prefer it.

I like the simplicity and flexibility of RancherOS and run my docker hosts with more than 4GB of RAM anyway, so don't care about the 2GB thing right now.

 

[KrisBee]

So by the sounds of it all the trials and testing I have done recently to get rancher working (which it still isn’t) has been for naught? As they are going to remove it? And I for one won’t stay on an old version just for one feature. So it’s best now to spin up a Ubuntu? VM or something else? And install docker and go from there?

Forward planning would suggest using docker in a linux VM with the distro of your choice. FreeNAS never kept up with the frequent RancherOS release schedule ( https://github.com/rancher/os/releases ) and could never offer a simple mechanism for the end-user to upgrade rancheros versions due to the limitation of bhyve boot mechanisms. Users running a few docker apps may be better served by portainer than rancher server, or just docker compose.