Docker is not a source to blame

I have been reading a few articles that have been published recently regarding the use of docker in production. Of the articles I read, all seem to complain about the instability of docker, the docker ecosystem, and they lament persistent storage. While I have not run docker in production for a lengthy amount of time, I can determine these issues are from operator error and are not entirely docker’s fault.

One article I read came out and boldly said that docker created a new file system in one year and it is not humanly possible to have created one in such a short amount of time. I think this article writer has never heard of the DevOps philosophy nor the minimum viability product (MVP). Basically, you do not need 100% of the features to have a working product. This makes it clearly possible to build a single file system – though not have all of the features – within a short time frame. It is also noted that a year in this development process, a second file system was created. Just like in real life, if you wait to ship a product with 100% of the features, you will never ship the product.

If you are losing data due to not properly mounting the volumes to a HA storage network (such as GlusterFS or DRBD) – you deserve to have lost the data. I know what it is like to lose 50TB of unique data due to a failed storage device, no current backups, and the shame and cost of having to send it over to DriveSavers (which they are!) for recovery. That is a painful experience and not worth repeating. If you do the same thing and expect different results, the issue lies with the operator and not the tool. Drastic changes were made when loss occurred including developing a new backup solution and having 1-to-1 replication of the data. It has also fine grained a permanent memory in my subsystem to not let that happen ever again.

Personally, I think running docker in a public cloud is a waste of company resources – there is no price difference between a VM and 1 docker image on AWS’ EC2 container platform of the same capacity. Even if you spun up an Atomic Host or similar, you still have to deal with networking constraints for your file storage. This is something best handled in house as you can scale your network infrastructure to match your workload.

The most important factor in all of this fuss about docker is that it is open source software. If you do not have the capacity to find flaws, make patches, and submit those patches for review to upstream, you are better off using a proprietary product that does not have such needs. Again, the issue lies in the operators and not the tools.

Add to the conversation:

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *