Containers vs VMs
This cluster centers on debates comparing virtual machines (VMs) and containers (like Docker), focusing on their differences in performance, isolation, efficiency, kernel sharing, security, and use cases such as sandboxing and deployment.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
That's what VMs are for, not containers.
What problem does Docker solve that using a VM cannot solve?
My VM is lighter and safer than your container:https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15610155
What's the practical point of running containers on VM?
What's the use case for this rather than containers? Separation from the hypervisor kernel?
Technically it's a container not a VM. So using this is about sandboxing it from the OS.
Running multiple containers is faster and more efficient than multiple VMs. Running a container on the same kernel as the host is faster and more efficient than a VM. If you're trying to run an app across different OS kernels, you still have to use a VM unless you can compile your app on that kernel natively. This project really doesn't do much beyond what a VM gets you, and you still have to configure the host outside the container to enable virtualization.
The vast majority of containers run on VM not baremetal.
Containers are just namespaces for things within the Linux kernel. Unlike with VMs, you're not running separate instances of the OS, it's all run by just one kernel instance, and that kernel usually runs directly on the hardware, that is, on "bare metal". That "ubuntu" base image you can spin up does not actually run the Ubuntu kernel. As a result, bare metal containers incur none of the "virtualization penalty" that VMs do.Cloud is, in fact, abnormal i
You're still talking about VMs?! :) containers are stop gap, VM is old school, different things.