Doesn't this article fail to consider the bigger, practical picture, i.e. overall resource efficiency/footprint in multi-component architectures?
Containers allow us to condense workloads in a single OS runtime –while preserving isolation– where otherwise the same workloads would have spanned multiple machines or VMs, each with its overhead and slack (unused resources).
Example: consider you need to deploy not just a single instance of Wordpress, Redis, Postgres, etc., but a complex application consisting of many of those components.
You can either choose to (a) deploy each in a different machine [incurring in the overhead of OS + unused resources]; (b) in different VMs [incurring in the cost of OS, but being able to share a resource pool]; or (c) in containers, sharing the OS and incurring in the overhead of the container daemon.
I would love to see an article that takes these points into account.
Containers allow us to condense workloads in a single OS runtime –while preserving isolation– where otherwise the same workloads would have spanned multiple machines or VMs, each with its overhead and slack (unused resources).
Example: consider you need to deploy not just a single instance of Wordpress, Redis, Postgres, etc., but a complex application consisting of many of those components.
You can either choose to (a) deploy each in a different machine [incurring in the overhead of OS + unused resources]; (b) in different VMs [incurring in the cost of OS, but being able to share a resource pool]; or (c) in containers, sharing the OS and incurring in the overhead of the container daemon.
I would love to see an article that takes these points into account.