From nobody Thu Feb 01 23:39:34 2024 X-Original-To: freebsd-virtualization@mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mlmmj.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4TQwPW0Cllz58w1B for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2024 23:40:15 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marietto2008@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ed1-x52b.google.com (mail-ed1-x52b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::52b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "GTS CA 1D4" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4TQwPV5Y2rz4vQh for ; Thu, 1 Feb 2024 23:40:14 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from marietto2008@gmail.com) Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; none Received: by mail-ed1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-55f19a3ca7aso5111121a12.1 for ; Thu, 01 Feb 2024 15:40:14 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1706830810; x=1707435610; darn=freebsd.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=XQinCytRmEpbShtwCGGRsRGNObLnYwhWm7HmA7XElD0=; b=NU/6O05RP4PTIIW2TOioEhA2IhrfbLPwGFQesWue102EPYb+3HFgb/LH/9D2YvmZQD 4DgabWVJ10QEgWRmBMYj3jZqUMApkAzRniMybXb+3cSsCEcvyQOK4ivTUyBcr8T+dX7o sHqHPLL9fFkih65r0krv2Kuj9P0KYE3PFusU/6BJYQJ5fX8MnBptJTbZOepXZSHgYl0O Ic2NAdvW3lohT/S2L3oP8QdbZ5D5Tnjut7dAe+cvldxs+ieU3gdCKtcZMY5StYV3UC4p JlomptmelPFR9k5Hq6vfh2FyHyLWKz0KKp7m+2aZybbJlX4fFg29Minz4hK6Wb0nvOvb MD8g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1706830810; x=1707435610; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=XQinCytRmEpbShtwCGGRsRGNObLnYwhWm7HmA7XElD0=; b=SPzTHgoAAIK0FA42t6/ezze5AdPFJMEQ+cPoOFddf0ycZSYwSI7V1xkCWdijUpYpXp Pgz41SxM10nhRq7x27VF78/9bfbxJqlvnKup61hPIxzduY2wX12/rdyX+hiAUqqmMeGf sHG+ORIVo00aQym2VBIbzEuULmGaRBzLgVtM6iBp3CogAG1QWisks7N+CLOmcrzyWFI2 0imCxh909+myCaKnYcISWRgkX5tkA1EmEfEeNcoX7IDFHLKGQY7mXpCuxIIKb3R7Gu/1 dCi9GsEBRyL8zq3kWqfto7LPj1HYuBxL3UrglKHij6Z+jr9Sdig4vQyhzRv9OrOG7Y8F O6TQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxGF7moD5WjasT89ifv66IPQcyjFR7chDHwZf0U8CUU2AhnDzEv k1+ZxUDgOApvIWKplMY7n2NfHO8kBYm4QFTvprwmkEPSeqSRy0NS5etsw4wMXEGMqfopfm5fjmI LUuSnev6P5FAEiDTvAhhm0pJljYJXBUST5T0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEn5sEwJW1IH+5IefBbhnf2CaUTUOca+uvrF9Pa7s3P5qAnqj2+LZDrQoR8kEpFYWvtQwIkm9RjnMBB3rdewWw= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:7e9c:b0:a37:60e:3cfc with SMTP id qb28-20020a1709077e9c00b00a37060e3cfcmr66032ejc.0.1706830810395; Thu, 01 Feb 2024 15:40:10 -0800 (PST) List-Id: Discussion List-Archive: https://lists.freebsd.org/archives/freebsd-virtualization List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Sender: owner-freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Mario Marietto Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:39:34 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: If we are so opposed to Docker and Kubernetes, what is the real alternative on BSD? To: Paul Vixie Cc: FreeBSD virtualization Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000025380d06105a84eb" X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4TQwPV5Y2rz4vQh X-Spamd-Bar: ---- X-Rspamd-Pre-Result: action=no action; module=replies; Message is reply to one we originated X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 15.00]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2a00:1450::/32, country:US] --00000000000025380d06105a84eb Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Excuse me. I'm not very experienced,but isn't the L4 or any other microkernel a valid alternative to containers ? If I have understood correctly how it works,it allows multiple instances of the various services implemented within the microkernel OS. How many instances can we have ? For example in the L4 Linux kernel webpage it is explained that it can boot FreeBSD in cooperation with Linux. It works like xen. WIth xen we can have multiple virtual machines. But xen today has been preferred to kvm. And anyway,we always talk about monolithic kernels. So,I want to ask : is a microkernel OS a valid alternative to the containers ? If it allows to run only some services of the "virtualized" os,why not use it ? Why not invest effort and time to implement this solution as an alternative to the containers that FreeBSD already has ? Personally I like the idea of seeing Linux and FreeBSD work together. On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 12:18=E2=80=AFAM Paul Vixie wrote= : > > > Alejandro Imass wrote on 2024-02-01 07:18: > > ... > > > > But I don't think anyone really wants Docker and there's the hypervisor > > for that. The intent of the thread is to deliberate on native freebsd > > orchestration and autoscaling. > > I don't think anyone would mind re-writing Dockerfile to Bastillefile o= r > > whatever. What's missing is the other part, the k8s equivalent. > > I think Docker and K8S and other successful / dominant forms of > containers in the OSS world are platform-specific simply because that's > what their creators and early adopters cared about. Adding more forms of > platform-specific container technology (for example, taking explicit > advantage of Bastille or other FreeBSD features) would not be a value > add since its adopters would likely still have to support other > platforms. To be worth doing, the outcome should be platform-agnostic, > allowing a container creator to not-have-to-care what the underlying > operating system was. "Write Once Run Anywhere." > > seems to be an example > of putting the container-maker first and insulating them from details > they won't care about such as what the underlying platform is running. > Good abstraction boundaries make good neighbors, as they say. > > "We" should not be opposed to Docker per se nor K8S. Linux became > dominant by focusing on what its users wanted to be able to do. Docker > and K8S likewise. If we have value to add to that mix, it won't be in > the form of bespoke or BSD-lockin alternatives. It might be in inclusive > and platform-agnostic alternatives. > > -- > P Vixie > > > --=20 Mario. --00000000000025380d06105a84eb Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Excuse me. I'm not very experienced,but isn't the = L4 or any other microkernel a valid alternative to containers ? If I have u= nderstood correctly how it works,it allows multiple instances of the variou= s services implemented within the microkernel OS. How many instances can we= have ? For example in the L4 Linux kernel webpage it is explained that it = can=C2=A0boot FreeBSD in cooperation with Linux. It works like xen. WIth xe= n we can have multiple virtual machines. But xen today has been preferred t= o kvm. And anyway,we always talk about monolithic kernels. So,I want to ask= : is a microkernel OS a valid alternative to the containers ? If it allows= to run only some services of the "virtualized" os,why not use it= ? Why not invest effort and time to implement this solution as an alternat= ive to the containers that FreeBSD already has ? Personally I like the idea= of seeing Linux and FreeBSD work together.

On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 12:1= 8=E2=80=AFAM Paul Vixie <paul@redbar= n.org> wrote:


Alejandro Imass wrote on 2024-02-01 07:18:
> ...
>
> But I don't think anyone really wants Docker and there's the h= ypervisor
> for that. The intent of the thread is to deliberate on native freebsd =
> orchestration and autoscaling.
> I don't think anyone would mind re-writing Dockerfile to Bastillef= ile or
> whatever. What's missing is the other part, the k8s equivalent.
I think Docker and K8S and other successful / dominant forms of
containers in the OSS world are platform-specific simply because that's=
what their creators and early adopters cared about. Adding more forms of platform-specific container technology (for example, taking explicit
advantage of Bastille or other FreeBSD features) would not be a value
add since its adopters would likely still have to support other
platforms. To be worth doing, the outcome should be platform-agnostic,
allowing a container creator to not-have-to-care what the underlying
operating system was. "Write Once Run Anywhere."

<https://github.com/tnorlin/kubernetes/releases= > seems to be an example
of putting the container-maker first and insulating them from details
they won't care about such as what the underlying platform is running. =
Good abstraction boundaries make good neighbors, as they say.

"We" should not be opposed to Docker per se nor K8S. Linux became=
dominant by focusing on what its users wanted to be able to do. Docker
and K8S likewise. If we have value to add to that mix, it won't be in <= br> the form of bespoke or BSD-lockin alternatives. It might be in inclusive and platform-agnostic alternatives.

--
P Vixie




--
Mario.
--00000000000025380d06105a84eb--