On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 02:03PM, jay vyas wrote: > 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"....
This would be a false analogy, Jay :) > 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
