[HN Gopher] Speed boost achievement unlocked on Docker Desktop 4...
___________________________________________________________________
Speed boost achievement unlocked on Docker Desktop 4.6 for Mac
Author : ingve
Score : 88 points
Date : 2022-03-16 18:00 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.docker.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.docker.com)
| 1123581321 wrote:
| Invalid SSL on WPengine--can someone who saw it briefly
| summarize?
| sethhochberg wrote:
| The release notes have a good overview:
| https://docs.docker.com/desktop/mac/release-notes/#docker-de...
|
| > Docker Desktop 4.6.0 gives macOS users the option of enabling
| a new experimental file sharing technology called VirtioFS.
| During testing VirtioFS has been shown to drastically reduce
| the time taken to sync changes between the host and VM, leading
| to substantial performance improvements. For more information,
| see VirtioFS.
| xerxes901 wrote:
| Oh hey, I'm the Konstantinos mentioned at the end. The excellent
| work done by the Asahi Linux folk on discovering demonstrating
| the incredislow MacBook nvme flush is what prompted me to dig
| into this for Docker.
|
| Nice to see the fixes make it into a release!
| legodion wrote:
| Know what's even faster? Configuring your local host server with
| the same values as your remote production server. It really isn't
| that hard.
| brimble wrote:
| Cool. I need to roll back to a version from last year, with
| entirely different versions of daemons (PostgreSQL, et c). Then
| run that side-by-side with what's currently deployed. I may end
| up needing to git-bisect and repeat this process a half dozen
| times--this afternoon. I want _none_ of those deps or configs
| to hang around, at all, afterward. And I 'll need all that gone
| next week and a whole different set of services installed
| because I'll be helping out on some other project entirely. But
| then I'll come back to this and need all those things installed
| again. At any moment someone might have a question on something
| else entirely--a whole suite of services, potentially--that,
| ideally, I'd be able to fire up an try out locally in, at most,
| a few minutes, then completely eradicate when I'm done so it's
| not wasting disk space.
|
| What's your solution for that? A bunch of full-fat VMs
| configured with Ansible or something? Been there, done that,
| less convenient, more resource-intensive, and far
| noisier/cruftier than Docker (though the script-configured-VM
| approach is still far better than running that stuff directly
| on my machine[s], admittedly)
| afturner wrote:
| Are you suggesting that containerization is worthless?
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| Been there, done that. 2014: 20k lines of chef code, followed
| with tons of ansible yaml soup.
|
| Containers are better.
| fredoliveira wrote:
| Sorry, no. Unless of course you plan on not doing anything else
| on your machine. Otherwise it can't be a 1:1 replica of your
| production environment, which defats the purpose. The reason
| containerization is so appealing is because it lets you have
| the same exact setup (to the byte) everywhere. By doing that,
| you build predictable environments.
|
| If your production environments don't require reproducibility
| that is fine. If you want to figure out what might be causing
| issues in production by using a setup that has the same
| dependencies but a different underlying base, fine. But that
| just won't do for lots and lots of products.
| bhuber wrote:
| It is when your local host server is macos and your remote
| production server is... anything else. I'm sure the number of
| people running macos servers in production is quite small in
| proportion to linux.
| chemicalnovae wrote:
| Lots of chatter here about alternatives that all seem to miss the
| point that the alternatives suffer from the same filesystem
| performance issues that this release claims to improve. Might not
| be an issue for you but if you've ever had to work with a volume
| mount with a ton of small files (like php or node dependencies)
| then this could be a real life saver.
| flurie wrote:
| Both Kata Containers and UTM support virtio-fs, so this is not
| strictly true. The former can be used as a stand-in replacement
| for the runtime used by docker desktop[1]. With the latter, one
| could use a UTM-backed guest as a docker runtime in macOS[2] or
| run docker directly on the guest[3].
|
| [1] https://github.com/kata-
| containers/documentation/blob/master...
|
| [2] https://www.codeluge.com/post/setting-up-docker-on-
| macos-m1-...
|
| [3] https://www.lifeintech.com/2021/11/03/docker-performance-
| on-...
| cutler wrote:
| Is this an issue with dynamic languages in general? Are
| Java/Kotlin and Golang, for example, not affected?
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| It depends what you need to do. If you build a golang binary
| in a container and run go mod tidy, you get hit by it. If you
| build a java app with, say, maven, you will pull deps into a
| volume mount and you get hit by it. Of course, you can mount
| a host dir to avoid the problem to a certain extent.
| benbristow wrote:
| Shame you started charging for commercial entities. We've all
| uninstalled Docker Desktop (Windows) now in our team and just
| gone to using the software (mainly SQL server) natively on our
| machines instead.
| Isthatablackgsd wrote:
| > Shame you started charging for commercial entities.
|
| Is that how it works for commercial license? Commercial license
| come with extras than what personal-use/free licenses have. You
| are whining that Docker is charging for commercial license that
| the company you works for is a commercial entity. Docker
| provides an platform and they are not free for commercial to
| use. Personal use is a drop in the bucket for them because
| personal users are not overwhelming their servers or pulling
| huge data daily. Commercial entities is a deluge in the bucket
| for Docker because entities use their servers more often than
| personal user do. Commercial uses consumes more data than
| personal use and you want Docker to accept that and eat the
| costs for commercial entities? If Docker does this, then Docker
| will not last a year without commercial pricing.
|
| You, sir, have a strange ideology of this.
| MandieD wrote:
| Docker Hub was part of why we declined Docker for Business
| and instead came up with our own WSL-based workaround. Docker
| Hub is an anti-feature for large enterprises; we had been
| blocking direct access to it for a while before all this and
| instead providing images via internal Artifactory once we'd
| had a look at them.
|
| Another major part was SSO being merely on the roadmap at the
| point we would have had to begin the purchasing process with
| our licensing service. "Well, just slap down a credit card!"
| That is not how large enterprises work, and Docker appears to
| have fallen down on their market research when they didn't
| set up a way to deal with purchase orders.
| hedora wrote:
| All commercial entities I have worked for wanted to locally
| host docker hub for cost, resiliency and security reasons.
|
| Third parties even produced patches to do this but upstream
| rejected them.
|
| They wanted a monopoly on burning server and network time on
| CI jobs. Now they have it, and I'm not sympathetic if it
| wastes their money. I'm more concerned that it wastes my
| time.
| Isthatablackgsd wrote:
| My take of this is that those commercial entities are not
| raising hell over this. Commercial entities have the buying
| power (not the individuals nor the single developer(s) of
| the company) and they are complicit with it. The reason why
| Docker haven't change stance on the pricing because those
| entities haven't/don't attempt to use their buying power to
| sway Docker to change their stance. Yes, developers are
| raised hell over it but their power as a developers in the
| commercial entities are not equal. Developers does not run
| the company, the board of director/CEO/founder/owner does
| as they please. They just accepts it. That is not the fault
| of Docker, that is on those commercial entities who have
| the money continue to pay for those. It is too late to
| change the stance on this because entities have been paying
| for Docker support for YEARS and YEARS and YEARS, even way
| before that last year pricing tier changes.
| [deleted]
| smoldesu wrote:
| Give Podman a look, if you haven't already. It's FOSS through-
| and-through, and kinda eats Docker's lunch for a lot of my
| personal uses. Not sure how it scales in larger environments,
| but it's pretty close to feature parity with Docker where it
| counts.
| happymellon wrote:
| Does Podman have a VM wrapper like Docker Desktop for running
| on MacOS?
| MrWiffles wrote:
| Last I looked, yes. AFAIK, MacOS lacks the necessary
| underlying features in the kernel to implement containers
| (at least _this_ kind of container) at all, so you have to
| run a Linux VM under the hood to enable rough feature
| parity, which is a waste of resources in my view. Yet
| another reason I 'm planning to ditch MacOS for Linux full
| time very soon.
| happymellon wrote:
| Oh, sorry you misunderstood my question.
|
| I know that I would have to run Linux in a VM. My
| question was whether Podman provided an installer that
| set up a Linux VM in the same way that Docker Desktop
| does.
|
| It's completely awful, seeing Mac and Windows spend their
| their trying to VM Linux, poorly. But that's what I have
| to work with.
| smackeyacky wrote:
| What is completely awful is developers tying themselves
| in knots trying to get MacOS to do things that Apple
| don't really want to do.
|
| The community edition of Docker is much closer to most
| cloud container setups anyway, so using Docker Desktop is
| really counter productive.
|
| There are better alternatives for your workstation,
| especially if your production environment is Linux based.
| Most, if not all, of the major development environments
| run well in Linux. Obviously not XCode, but for server
| side stuff it doesn't matter.
| bonzini wrote:
| It's not that it doesn't implement containers, it's that
| most likely your container has Linux binaries in it and
| thus it cannot run on macOS.
| matsemann wrote:
| For running a container it works fine. But for a developer
| workflow with docker compose, remote interpreters etc. it's
| nowhere near docker's offering.
| emptysongglass wrote:
| For those curious, Podman also has an official GUI currently
| only available for macOS at
| https://github.com/containers/podman-desktop
| grawlinson wrote:
| nerdctl[0] is also worth a look.
|
| [0]: https://github.com/containerd/nerdctl
| dewey wrote:
| Are you charging your customers money for the things your team
| builds for them? Why should Docker be different?
| sergiomattei wrote:
| What was the point of using Docker in the first place then?
| benbristow wrote:
| I don't know to be honest. Wasn't my decision (in-fact I
| campaigned against it). Probably just to say "we're using
| Docker" on the job spec.
| otterley wrote:
| Software is worth paying for if it saves you time (and
| therefore money) and buys you a consistent, reliable experience
| with a pleasant UX.
|
| Building software is also the thing that pays a lot of our
| bills. We expect our customers to pay us for our engineering
| labor. What makes Docker any different?
| benbristow wrote:
| The bait-and-switch, providing it for free then suddenly
| taking it away.
| anamexis wrote:
| If by "suddenly" you mean "with 5 months notice."
| rat9988 wrote:
| After many years of service making it hard to remove, and
| a non negligible cost.
| glenngillen wrote:
| So the thing that makes this egregious is they let you
| use it for free for _almost a decade_, while they fumbled
| finding an alternative monetisation strategy?
| KronisLV wrote:
| > After many years of service making it hard to remove...
|
| Would you rather they go under as a company, due to how
| badly their attempts at monetizing containers have failed
| in the past and then have Docker Desktop not be
| maintained at all and have Docker as a whole take a
| noticeable hit?
|
| > ...and a non negligible cost.
|
| I'd say that perhaps using either Docker with the CLI,
| IDE integrations/plugins or using Rancher Desktop
| (https://rancherdesktop.io/) are more cost effective
| alternatives in that case.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Those 5 months are irrelevant when companies have
| invested years of development effort in weaving docker
| into their workflow. It's a bait and switch, simple as
| that.
| david38 wrote:
| If you didn't pay for it, you can only have zero
| expectations, simple as that.
|
| You can provide something for free, not make any promises
| that it will be free with upgrades in perpetuity, and one
| day decide to stop. It's as simple as that.
| kcb wrote:
| > If you didn't pay for it, you can only have zero
| expectations, simple as that.
|
| Says who? There's plenty of free as in didn't transact
| dollars for software that I have extremely high
| expectations for. Visual Studio Code, Gmail, Github, etc.
|
| When they one day decide to stop I can also choose to be
| disappointed, not buy and no longer use their software.
| It's as simple as that.
| anamexis wrote:
| I think there's a distinction to be made between B2C and
| B2B there. Gmail and Github are _not_ free for businesses
| (and Docker _is_ still free for individuals).
| anamexis wrote:
| I would argue it's only bait and switch if they implied
| that it would always be free.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Did they say from the beginning _" Hey, it's free for
| now, but brace yourselves, we'll start charging you at
| some point in the future"_?
| Isthatablackgsd wrote:
| Did they say from the beginning * "Hey, it's free
| forever!" * ?
|
| If they made it explicit that it is free forever, then I
| would agree with your stance that Docker in the wrong.
| But so far I couldn't find a shred of information
| indicating that Docker commercial/enterprise account will
| be free forever. So that didn't put Docker in a wrong.
|
| And be realistic of this world, you cannot expect
| software companies to survive on free account alone
| forever. Who is paying the servers to keep it up? Docker.
| Who is providing the support? Docker. Who paying the
| developers to keep Docker products updated and introduce
| new features? Docker. How could Docker survive without
| the cash flow with the free account forever. I mean
| Google, Microsoft, Chococately, Homebrew/Brew, etc have
| commercial licenses to cover the cost of their products
| to keep it free for personal-use users. If you don't see
| this coming, well I don't what to tell you but that is
| the cost of doing business.
| [deleted]
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> Did they say from the beginning _ "Hey, it's free
| forever!" * ? If they made it explicit that it is free
| forever, then I would agree with your stance that Docker
| in the wrong. *
|
| Well sorry but free without any conditions attached,
| becomes free as in beer. If I give you a shiny toy for
| free no strings attached, I can't come back to your house
| later and ask for money for it because I didn't specify
| how long it would be free. If I didn't specify the
| conditions of the 'free', then I goofed up.
|
| If they didn't put any conditions on the duration of the
| 'free' from the start and is causing them to loose money,
| then either they were financially stupid from the start
| or, more likely, they wanted to pull the classic SV
| success scam where you bait customers into a free*
| product for years, burning endless cash to capture the
| market, and when customers become locked in thanks to the
| 'free', and you are the de-facto standard with no
| competition left, start rent seeking.
| Isthatablackgsd wrote:
| I has been searching for Docker pricing information about
| various licenses and I came across mutliple snapshot from
| Wayback and it clearly show they are charging for the
| support and various thing. It dated way back to 2015,
| commercial entities already paying for the support back
| then. It been there for years! To be clear, Free (as in
| personal-use license) accounts have been FREE to use and
| it still free. It just that other licenses are not and
| Docker been charging those other licenses for years.
|
| And people complaining about the "bait-and-switch" that
| occurred few years ago while Docker has been charging for
| non-free licenses way before that. Huh?
| anamexis wrote:
| I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure they've been
| explicit for a quite awhile about Docker Enterprise being
| their product for organizations.
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20200101044220/https://www.do
| cke...
| thr0wawayf00 wrote:
| Did you really, truly think that a product like Docker
| desktop would stay free forever? This is a fundamental
| aspect of building software products and companies. I do
| not understand how in 2022 we still have people hanging out
| in tech forums like HN that do not understand this.
|
| The first objective of a pre-revenue company is to grow as
| fast as possible and then either get acquired or start
| generating revenue, which almost always involves marking up
| their product. And because of the nature of software, it's
| easy to build POC's and prototypes that half-work today,
| with the promise of better functionality and integration in
| the future. But that tomorrow always comes with a cost.
|
| Somehow, folks in this industry seem to be convinced that
| it's OK for them to turn a profit on their value-add
| software, but not other people. What are software companies
| supposed to do? Overcharge today for software that doesn't
| necessarily work right now? What's the model that companies
| like Docker should use instead?
| FooBarWidget wrote:
| This is not a matter of understanding. It's a matter of
| acceptance. Phrases like "it's a bait and switch" are
| just excuses around an entitled mindset.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> Did you really, truly think that a product like Docker
| desktop would stay free forever?_
|
| You're mistaken here. Nobody has issues paying for
| software, however people have issues with being baited
| into a free product to then suddenly be charged after
| companies get locked in, which is a shitty business
| practice that needs to be discouraged.
|
| Had Docker been transparent from the start that at some
| point in the future it will cost money, then that would
| have been fair since this would have been factored into
| business decisions.
|
| You can't just hand out free candy and after people
| swallow it, you tell them they now have to pay up or
| throw it up, since you can't expect such good candy to be
| free. That's basically a scam.
|
| Again, it's not about the money, it's about transparency.
| danudey wrote:
| If there's one rule of adding paid features, it's "Don't
| make previously-free features paid". They set the anchor
| price to "free" and then changed their minds later. Human
| psychology does not appreciate this and will resist and
| resent it, because we see it as someone taking away what
| we have.
|
| The solution is to add additional features and charge for
| them; they _should_ have charged more for e.g. automatic
| kubernetes configurations and other more "businessey"
| features, but now it's too late and there's no value-adds
| that they haven't already added.
|
| In the end, it's not a complaint about Docker's "value-
| add" software; they're complaining about an increase in
| the price without an increase in the value.
|
| I'm not sure what Docker could do from this point on.
| Maybe I'm missing something, but they seem pretty doomed
| overall.
| ljm wrote:
| I'm not going to challenge your point but Docker also
| found itself in the unusual position of being
| commoditised before it could figure out how to make
| money. It's not a novel thought, it's been discussed here
| plenty enough that their business model vanished under
| their feet, especially when kubernetes entered the fray.
|
| I can see why people aren't happy with how things have
| played out. Docker does need to earn its crust and pay
| its people, and this is strictly for the desktop UI, team
| space, and nascent collaboration feature with dev
| environments. It's a value-add over barebones docker but,
| and this is what is probably frustrating, it targets
| Windows and Mac users exclusively because it's not as
| easy to run docker without their software.
|
| Let's not also forget that they made optional upgrades a
| paid-for feature, while at the same time releasing
| software with showstopping bugs and regressions. Their
| response was literally to pay them money so you could
| deny an automatic upgrade. So my sympathy for Docker
| finding itself in this position is fairly limited,
| knowing that.
| halostatue wrote:
| Docker Desktop on macOS is none of the three (consistent,
| reliable, or pleasant UX). I have -- with some exceptions --
| replaced it _trivially_ with Colima for how I use DD (and I
| am not in the class of people who need to pay for DD, but the
| forced updates and space-wasting UI were unpleasant).
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| You built a company on questionable business model expecting
| that "somewhere down the line you will be making money" which
| never happened as it happens most of the time when you kick
| the can down the road.
|
| Now I have to use your software because you used investor
| money to make that software industry standard (standard,
| which is in fact pretty low). Yet you still made no money.
|
| Who knows, maybe if Docker didn't exist the vacuum in the
| solution space would be filled with something better or
| worse?
| hedora wrote:
| Docker Desktop doesn't save any time or money vs. things like
| minikube.
|
| The initial setup is slightly easier, but then you're exposed
| to random modal dialog popups for all time moving forward.
|
| If there was some value add, then maybe it would be worth
| paying for. As it is, it looks like they spun off the part of
| the company that had any hope of turning a profit (via
| support contracts), and now they're flailing around in search
| of a business model.
|
| It's a shame. Dockerfiles are nice. I hope they come up with
| a way of getting people to pay for some (actual) value add.
| kedean wrote:
| It is and that's great, but changing the license never goes
| over well, especially for developers in a large company. I
| would have loved to just pay for DD, but it's really hard to
| answer the question "this has been free for years, why should
| we pay for it now?". The bait-and-switch also feels pretty
| insidious to a lot of developers, please refer to when Oracle
| did the same thing with their JVM implementation.
|
| I've also found that a lot of large enterprises have had big
| difficulties on hammering out licensing terms with Docker.
| When it's a product you actively use, that means the devs
| will either wait for shit to hit the fan or start looking at
| alternatives, and find that there are still free competitors
| (Rancher Desktop, Podman, Minikube depending on your use-
| case).
|
| IMO, it would have been a whole lot better if the Desktop
| product had been paid to begin with, rather than being
| suddenly switched as a last minute monetization strategy.
| NorwegianDude wrote:
| I guess it's still insanely slow for windows mounts? Or has that
| changed too?
| matsemann wrote:
| On Windows I just have the files/repo checked out on the WSL
| side. At least JetBrains' products handle that very effectively
| (you get a performance drop the other way with that back to
| windows side, of course, but IntelliJ/PyCharm/etc handles that
| with a local cache and some magic making it behave as
| expected).
|
| One other issue this also solves is that volume mounts from
| windows don't inotify correctly, so hot reloading doesn't work
| properly. But with files on the WSL side that works fine.
| athorax wrote:
| I know it isn't a direct replacement, but I switched to rancher
| desktop[0] on macos and it has been a pretty easy transition just
| using nerdctl instead of docker cli
|
| [0]https://rancherdesktop.io/
| speedgoose wrote:
| You can also use Docker using Rancher Desktop. It's a setting.
| kedean wrote:
| It's more than a setting, it's the first thing you are asked
| when you start it for the first time. I love that RD doesn't
| default to one or the other and make it harder to use one.
| chrisjc wrote:
| Multipass from Canonical has been working really well for me.
|
| https://multipass.run/
| navels wrote:
| Similarly switched to https://github.com/abiosoft/colima and
| have been happy with it.
| Ocha wrote:
| I've been trying to use Colima but I get weird networking
| issue - there is a GitHub issue open for it but no solution
| for now. Was forced to figure out something else for now
| bak3y wrote:
| I've also swapped to colima and the only thing I struggle
| with sometimes is just remembering the executable name to
| start it up :D
| viraptor wrote:
| I was curious what's the situation for Colima. It like like fs
| sharing is being discussed a lot over the years, but virtiofs
| depends on Mac's virtualisation.framework and can't be used in
| qemu currently. https://github.com/lima-
| vm/lima/issues/20#issuecomment-10686...
|
| Instead 9p experimental support got there a few days ago:
| https://github.com/lima-vm/lima/issues/20#issuecomment-10660...
| gigatexal wrote:
| On Linux how is this done? Raw no virtio or anything?
| hanikesn wrote:
| On Linux you don't need Docker Desktop and and run docker
| natively without any VMs. FS is managed via overlayfs which
| provides near native performance.
| emptysongglass wrote:
| Canonical now offers one-command docker environments with
| Multipass for those looking at alternatives:
| https://ubuntu.com/blog/docker-on-mac-and-windows-multipass
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-16 23:00 UTC)