Agreed: even without a vm implementation, for defining machine roles and managing multiple systems, vagrant is a huge timesaver.... it's an idiom and a standard for deployment life cycle that is robust, platform independent and hypervisor independent, and always aware of how many resources it's taken up (and how to free them).
> On Aug 24, 2014, at 3:58 AM, Evans Ye <[email protected]> wrote: > > hi Jay, > Thanks for summarizing all the good points. > I think another benefit by using vagrant is that you can coordinate > multiple services to become a one stop provisioning tool. > Let's say for a web service, you need one httpd and one mysql server, and > that can be defined in a single Vagrantfile and use a vagrant up command to > setup everything. > That's all the same with provisioning a bigtop hadoop cluster. > Although there're several awesome project like fig > <https://github.com/docker/fig>and helios > <https://github.com/spotify/helios> which do the same thing like vagrant, > but you just mentioned the key point that vagrant supports multiple > providers like virtualbox, aws and docker. > With that kind of flexibility we can reduce our codes complexity and avoid > to bring in too much platform specific orchestration tools. > I think we can keep this in mind that there're advantages vagrant provided > and see if we do need it during the development iterations. > > > 2014-08-20 4:33 GMT+08:00 jay vyas <[email protected]>: > >> Also, sometimes you might want to provision without docker - i.e. straight >> to EC2. >> if you use vagrant for provisioning, this flexibility is gauranteed. >> just something to keep in mind for the future in case you say >> >> "hey, these docker wrappers that im maintaining seem highly coupled... is >> there a cleaner way to manage ephemeral docker containers?" >> >> then this email will ring a bell :) >>
