|
|
|
|
|
by smarterclayton
2897 days ago
|
|
For example, OpenShift (Kubernetes + stuff also from Red Hat) exposes this pattern like both heroku and cloud foundry by A) focusing on having standard base images controlled by ops B) encouraging combining source code / built artifacts as a layer on those base images C) giving controls to ops so that the only images users could build or run must be built with A/B above. In that mode containers are less wasteful because you can share the base image across every host (or rebuild everything centrally), and all that gets downloaded to a host is the source code top layer. Which is roughly indistinguishable from the lambda runtime and how it accesses the code to execute. |
|
More, you have to worry about the container host anyway, so you haven't removed the need to maintain a host. You've just added to it the need to maintain the rest of the container infrastructure as well as your application stuff.
For places that have not solved the "virtual hosts should be virtually free" problem, containers are quite welcome. You can get going with them quite quickly. If you have already solved that problem, they can look an awful lot like just more work.