Add ability to run VM like containers in Cloudron via Sysbox
-
@robi No no, I'm asking, what does this give us in a practical sense and how hard would it be to implement do you think?
@lonk said in Add ability to run VMs in containers in Cloudron via Sysbox:
No no, I'm asking, what does this give us in a practical sense and how hard would it be to implement do you think?
imho - What I can see down the road is the ability for companies to run some applications without the need to officially packaging the app. This can be useful for in-house apps that use parts of the filesystem that is normally read-only for example.
-
@lonk said in Add ability to run VMs in containers in Cloudron via Sysbox:
No no, I'm asking, what does this give us in a practical sense and how hard would it be to implement do you think?
imho - What I can see down the road is the ability for companies to run some applications without the need to officially packaging the app. This can be useful for in-house apps that use parts of the filesystem that is normally read-only for example.
-
@robi Does it accomplish this by running another layer on top of the already existing Docker layer then?
-
@murgero No.
It's simply a different container runtime.
Docker remains the same, we just tell it to use
sysbox
vs the defaultrunc
by adding--runtime sysbox-runc
to the docker command line or default config.That's it.
Simple.
-
@robi said in Add ability to run VMs in containers in Cloudron via Sysbox:
container runtime.
isn't that the same thing as engine? Or is docker the engine and containerd is the runtime?
@murgero said in Add ability to run VMs in containers in Cloudron via Sysbox:
isn't that the same thing as engine? Or is docker the engine and containerd is the runtime?
No.
Docker Engine is a product name that usescontainerd
(the container daemon) which relies onrunc
(run container) which is a CLI tool for spawning and running containers according to the OCI specification.All have a different abstraction level.
Therefore
sysbox-runc
is an alternate runc that is more secure and offers all of the above benefits.Docker Engine and containerd don't change, and accept a parameter to specify which runtime (runc) to use.
-
@murgero said in Add ability to run VMs in containers in Cloudron via Sysbox:
isn't that the same thing as engine? Or is docker the engine and containerd is the runtime?
No.
Docker Engine is a product name that usescontainerd
(the container daemon) which relies onrunc
(run container) which is a CLI tool for spawning and running containers according to the OCI specification.All have a different abstraction level.
Therefore
sysbox-runc
is an alternate runc that is more secure and offers all of the above benefits.Docker Engine and containerd don't change, and accept a parameter to specify which runtime (runc) to use.
-
@robi Thanks for going so much further into detail. Why do you personally want this feature?
@lonk Let me count the ways.
- It makes Cloudron better in so many ways already described above
- It would let me have a build env in Cloudron
- It would let me have a VDI in Cloudron via Guacamole
- It would speed development
- It would let me run more non-packaged apps more easily
- It would open other opportunities we haven't even explored yet.
-
@lonk Let me count the ways.
- It makes Cloudron better in so many ways already described above
- It would let me have a build env in Cloudron
- It would let me have a VDI in Cloudron via Guacamole
- It would speed development
- It would let me run more non-packaged apps more easily
- It would open other opportunities we haven't even explored yet.
@robi said in Add ability to run VMs in containers in Cloudron via Sysbox:
@lonk Let me count the ways.
- It makes Cloudron better in so many ways already described above
- It would let me have a build env in Cloudron
- It would let me have a VDI in Cloudron via Guacamole
- It would speed development
- It would let me run more non-packaged apps more easily
- It would open other opportunities we haven't even explored yet.
Okay, perfect, now why do you think the developer's seem opposed (since those are the pros and if there were no cons, fs anyone would do it)? Time and effort switching infrastructures would be my personal guess.
-
@robi said in Add ability to run VMs in containers in Cloudron via Sysbox:
@lonk Let me count the ways.
- It makes Cloudron better in so many ways already described above
- It would let me have a build env in Cloudron
- It would let me have a VDI in Cloudron via Guacamole
- It would speed development
- It would let me run more non-packaged apps more easily
- It would open other opportunities we haven't even explored yet.
Okay, perfect, now why do you think the developer's seem opposed (since those are the pros and if there were no cons, fs anyone would do it)? Time and effort switching infrastructures would be my personal guess.
-
@lonk
- fear?
- lack of confidence?
- not understanding how simple it may be?
- time looking into it?
- goto #1
-
@lonk Hard to say, it's been a relatively odd echo chamber in this thread, so without more feedback and clarity of the thinking, it's feeling quite neglected.
@robi I'd be interested in this. Will I likely use it to its full potential? No way. But my use case I am interested in: GitLab CI on cloudron without getting in the way of the containers on Cloudron. This would help, If I understand what I have read correctly.
-
@robi I'd be interested in this. Will I likely use it to its full potential? No way. But my use case I am interested in: GitLab CI on cloudron without getting in the way of the containers on Cloudron. This would help, If I understand what I have read correctly.
-
@atrilahiji yes, I think that's a docker-in-docker use case which is much better as a more isolated container.
@robi
hopefully we get this then I am tired of running my runner on a VM I pay for. Ideally I'd like the only things I pay for to me electricity (my server sips power) and Cloudron Licencing