hi roman... Your absolutely right, and your not the first dude ive had this debate with :).
also i think the debate can be generalized to other things, like "why use puppet when i can just use yum".... so anyways.. I figured Id quickly wrap up my thoughts in a blog post. http://jayunit100.blogspot.com/2014/08/why-i-still-use-vagrant-on-linux.html does that (sort of) make sense? On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 12:39 PM, Roman Shaposhnik <[email protected]> wrote: > Answering to both you and Evans: any reason Docker > containers can't be used for the exact same purposes > natively? Am I missing something? > > Thanks, > Roman. > > On Sun, Aug 24, 2014 at 5:29 AM, Jay Vyas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 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 :) > >>> > -- jay vyas
