I had to give up on Docker on FreeBSD because the latest versions of docker are now very dependent on netlink APIs for networking. The new network driver API for docker may allow creating a network driver for FreeBSD that would bypass that, but I haven't had a chance to look into it yet.
I think good docker support is going to be dependent on newer Linux kernel emulation in FreeBSD if porters don't want to make a full time job of implementing workarounds with every docker update. On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 6:48 AM Sergey Zakharchenko < doublef.mob...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Matthew, > > What needs to be done with docker to get it running better on FreeBSD? Is > > there any place with a list of bugs or a todo list? I would be > interested in > > getting it working better. > > It's more like a list of things which work, many things that don't, > and a sea of things which 'sorta' work. Mainly because of this one > entry in > https://github.com/kvasdopil/docker/blob/freebsd-compat/FREEBSD-PORTING.md > : > > >>> volumes - not working > > It's a small benign-looking entry. Not in bold, not highlighted, > hidden deeply from those unaware. > > Image building doesn't *really* work because of that, because the > resolver configuration and hosts file are, like, 'single-file mounts'. > So when you do a pkg install in the image-building container, you get > no address record. Jumping through some hoops, including > custom-generated Dockerfiles (what a crappy file format BTW), can > still get things done. You're left with jumping more hoops with adding > the volumes when you instantiate and start a container. > > Problems indicated by kvasdopil: Docker is too much of a moving target > and his patches no longer apply to the latest, they change everything > all the time (e.g. network config revamping, etc.). That is a valid > concern. > > Should I contribute to the whole thing? Too few people seem to care. > > My questions are: Is anyone here interested in a patch which improves > container-building performance (I'm patching Docker but a similar > approach should benefit Jetpack)? Now, is anyone interested and > *competent enough* in fixing the volume problem? > > Oh, and there's the whole port forwarding thing... > > >>> port forward - ok > > OK would be native support of a FreeBSD firewall, e.g. PF. Please > don't tell me you like the userland proxy. That's partial support, and > the container access logs become useless... > > P.S. Ryan wrote: > > I've since moved to Gentoo, ZFS for Linux, and Docker. Works really well. > > That's exactly the attitude the current state of things provoke. Not > blaming you in any way. Docker in general sounds like 'run it anywhere > and pray it's the latest 64-bit Ubuntu' :) > > Best regards, > > -- > DoubleF > _______________________________________________ > email@example.com mailing list > https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > _______________________________________________ firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"