docker for mac linux containers vs native container performance comparison

Like Red Hats container OS, CoreOS Container Linux creates a mostly immutable filesystem, but does so with a disk partitioning system inspired by Googles Chromium OS.

Generically known as container operating systems, these stripped down, purpose built Linux distributions are not the only way to run containers in production, but they provide a base that does not waste resources on anything besides container support.

The state of the industry with container deployment systems is very much like the early days of Linux distributions.

You have one key element, in this case the Docker container, that is surrounded by a number of competing ecosystem components.

Just as the traditional Linux distros bundled different package managers, desktop environments, system utilities, services, and apps, most container distributions mix and match various components to create what they consider an optimum solution.

Take for example distributed configuration and service discovery.

There are several solutions for this such as Etcd, Consul, and ZooKeeper.

Compare container operating systems: Alpine Linux, CoreOS Container Linux, RancherOS, Red Hat Project Atomic, and VMware Photon OS.

Keep up with the latest developments in cloud computing with InfoWorlds Cloud Computing newsletter.

Each distribution takes a different approach to what to include in the stack.

On one extreme there are distributions designed to support only the higher levels of the stack, such as CoreOS Container Linux and Red Hat Project Atomic.

So much of the functionality has been put into the proprietary management layer that there is little hope of using the OS for anything else.

Other distros, such as RancherOS and VMware Photon OS, provide greater flexibility, supporting multiple ecosystem components and orchestration systems.

These give administrators a good way to experiment and potentially avoid vendor lock-in.

Alpine Linux Alpine Linux, the underlying operating system for many official Docker images, is a great choice for the task.

A mere five megabytes in size, Alpine Linux is on the opposite end of the spectrum from the full-fat Linux distributions of a few years ago, which were competing with Solaris and intended to run on massive hardware systems.

Alpine Linuxs legacy as an embedded systems OS was evident during my review.

Many of the configuration options default to embedded systems, and the documentation in many areas was sparse, or non-existent.

Clearly a system designed for and primarily used by hackers, Alpine Linux will require companies to clear a few hurdles to build their applications.

Production deployments of Alpine Linux will enjoy several advantages including rapid startup, a minimalist footprint, and a secure-by-default stance not found elsewhere.

Everything from the system binaries to the C libraries is designed for small, fast, and secure deployments.

Installation and package management is unique even among the container operating systems, though well thought out.

If your development shop has above-average developers who are willing to make the investment, Alpine Linux will provide a solid, stable, secure base for applications for a long time to come.

CoreOS Container Linux The CoreOS container stack draws on Etcd for distributed storage and service discovery, Flannel for networking, and Kubernetes for container orchestration, and supports its own flavor of container format, rkt (Rocket), in addition to Docker.

Rocket was an attempt at a competing container format to address shortcomings in the Docker format circa 2015, but with those deficiencies addressed, Rocket hasnt seen much uptake.

Docker For Mac Linux Containers Vs Native Container Performance Comparison