I agree, its a bit unfairr of an analogy. but hopefully it illustrates the value that vagrant gives in a polyglot hypervisor type of world.
On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Konstantin Boudnik <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- jay vyas
