Docker Like For Windows Software On Docker

Those who know what they are doing can turn it on with all that entails.

These issues still seem unresolved (1) docker can peg the CPU until its restarted (2) pinata was removed, so it cant be configured from CLI scripts (3) its not possible to establish an ip-level route from the host to a container, which many dev environments depend on (4) filesystem can be slow Are these fixed in stable Im personally stuck transitioning from docker-machine and (from the comments) it seems like other folks are as well.

Docker Like For Windows Software On Docker

No one in their right mind is deploying actual production software on Docker, on OS XWindows.

Ive been using it on my laptop daily for a month or two now, and its been great.

Since the whole point of Docker would be to deploy these in production and not just for development, I dont see how the term ready for production can be used.

The deployment target for Docker containers for Windows will be a Windows OS.

Real native Windows containers and a Docker shim to manage them are coming: 1 but not released yet.

Unless something has changed since the last time I checked, The WindowsServerCore docker image was not generally available yet and requires server2016 (I think it was TP6 the last time I checked) Docker, to my knowledge, is still exclusively Linux flavors.

Though Im happy to be corrected if someone knows more than me).

Can you give any example of Docker being used to isolate Windows software.

We were considering moving our development environment to Docker for some Fun, but were still holding off until it is more stable and speedy.

My overall experience with it is that it is more performant (generally), plays better with the system clock and power management, and is otherwise less cumbersome than VirtualBox.

They are just getting started, but getting rid of VirtualBox is the big winner for me.

For instance, when I run a container, the port mapping will be on localhost rather than on some internal IP that I would always forget.

In Docker 1.11 they used VirtualBox to host a Linux Docker Image to run containers.

In 1.12 they switched to Microsofts Hyper-V.

And I can continue to use the great tools to manage the VM instead of being limited to what docker provides.

Some advanced network configuration is simply impossible in dockers VM.

This means what its always meant: that the company believes the sum theyll make by convincing people its production ready is greater than the sum theyll lose from people realizing it isnt.

Production ready in the sense that it is stable for the targeted use-case: local development environments.

All these tools are awesome and we use them, but PROPERLY deploying and supporting them in production is far from painless (or easy).

Yes many aspects need improving but case of what is there is deemed to of gained enough run-time in environments to be deemed stable enough to say, we can support this in production for off the shelf usage without you needing lots of grey-bearded wizards to glue it all in place and keep it that way.

Jessie for example did not ship with SELinux enabled which was a key deliverable for Jessie to be classed as stable ready for production, whats worse is it doesnt ship with the require SELinux policies - again another requirement before it was to be marked as stable, its filled with out of date packages (you know theyre old when theyre behind RHELCentOS) and they settled on probably the worst 3.x kernel they could have.

Shipping jessie without SELinux enabled was the right thing to do, if the alternative was: not shipping jessie; or shipping borked jessie with borked SELinux support on by default.

Docker Like Mac For Windows