-
kata-containers
Kata Containers is an open source project and community working to build a standard implementation of lightweight Virtual Machines (VMs) that feel and perform like containers, but provide the workload isolation and security advantages of VMs. https://katacontainers.io/
-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
-
firecracker-containerd
firecracker-containerd enables containerd to manage containers as Firecracker microVMs
-
lxd
Discontinued Powerful system container and virtual machine manager [Moved to: https://github.com/canonical/lxd] (by lxc)
-
SaaSHub
SaaSHub - Software Alternatives and Reviews. SaaSHub helps you find the best software and product alternatives
-
Nomad
Nomad is an easy-to-use, flexible, and performant workload orchestrator that can deploy a mix of microservice, batch, containerized, and non-containerized applications. Nomad is easy to operate and scale and has native Consul and Vault integrations.
-
documentation
Discontinued Kata Containers version 1.x documentation (for version 2.x see https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers). (by kata-containers)
-
simplenetes
The sns tool is used to manage the full life cycle of your Simplenetes clusters. It integrates with the Simplenetes Podcompiler project podc to compile pods.
-
SaaSHub
SaaSHub - Software Alternatives and Reviews. SaaSHub helps you find the best software and product alternatives
Fly is really nice. I’ve been getting my head around microvms recently to build some infrastructures around them. Even started building some tools to rebuild them directly from Dockerfiles and Docker images.
If anybody is interested: https://github.com/combust-labs/firebuild
It’s very early stages so many things could be improved but things are working.
I'm really impressed by fly.io, and the candidness with which they share some of their really awesome technology. Being container-first is the next step for PaaS IMO and they are ahead of the pack.
I aim to build a platform like theirs someday (probably not any time soon) but I don't think I'd do any of what they're doing -- it feels unnecessary. Bear with me as I recently learned that they use nomad[0] and some of these suggestions are kubernetes projects but I'd love to hear why the following technologies were decided against (if they were):
- kata-containers[1] (it does the whole container -> VM flow for you, automatically, nemu, firecracker) with multiple VMM options[2]
- linuxkit[3] (let's say you didn't go with kata-containers, this is another container->VM path)
- firecracker-containerd[4] (very minimal keep-your-container-but-run-it-as-a-VM)
- kubevirt[5] (if you just want to actually run VMs, regardless of how you built them)
- Ceph[6] for storage -- make LVM pools and just give them to Ceph, you'll get blocks, distributed filesystems (CephFS), and object gateways (S3/Swift) out of it (in the k8s space Rook manages this)
As an aside to all this, there's also LXD, which supports running "system" (user namespace isolated) containers, VMs (somewhat recent[7][8]), live migration via criu[9], management/migration of underlying filesystems, runs on LVM or zfs[10], it's basically all-in-one, but does fall behind in terms of ecosystem since everyone else is aboard the "cloud native"/"works-with-kubernetes" train.
I've basically how I plan to run a service like fly.io if I ever did -- so maybe my secret is out, but I sure would like to know just how much of this fly.io got built on (if any of it), and/or what was turned down.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26745514
[1]: https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers
[2]: https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers/blob/2fc7...
[3]: https://github.com/linuxkit/linuxkit
[4]: https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker-container...
[5]: https://github.com/kubevirt/kubevirt
[6]: https://docs.ceph.com/
[7]: https://discuss.linuxcontainers.org/t/running-virtual-machin...
[8]: https://github.com/lxc/lxd/issues/6205
[9]: https://criu.org/Main_Page
[10]: https://linuxcontainers.org/lxd/docs/master/storage
I'm really impressed by fly.io, and the candidness with which they share some of their really awesome technology. Being container-first is the next step for PaaS IMO and they are ahead of the pack.
I aim to build a platform like theirs someday (probably not any time soon) but I don't think I'd do any of what they're doing -- it feels unnecessary. Bear with me as I recently learned that they use nomad[0] and some of these suggestions are kubernetes projects but I'd love to hear why the following technologies were decided against (if they were):
- kata-containers[1] (it does the whole container -> VM flow for you, automatically, nemu, firecracker) with multiple VMM options[2]
- linuxkit[3] (let's say you didn't go with kata-containers, this is another container->VM path)
- firecracker-containerd[4] (very minimal keep-your-container-but-run-it-as-a-VM)
- kubevirt[5] (if you just want to actually run VMs, regardless of how you built them)
- Ceph[6] for storage -- make LVM pools and just give them to Ceph, you'll get blocks, distributed filesystems (CephFS), and object gateways (S3/Swift) out of it (in the k8s space Rook manages this)
As an aside to all this, there's also LXD, which supports running "system" (user namespace isolated) containers, VMs (somewhat recent[7][8]), live migration via criu[9], management/migration of underlying filesystems, runs on LVM or zfs[10], it's basically all-in-one, but does fall behind in terms of ecosystem since everyone else is aboard the "cloud native"/"works-with-kubernetes" train.
I've basically how I plan to run a service like fly.io if I ever did -- so maybe my secret is out, but I sure would like to know just how much of this fly.io got built on (if any of it), and/or what was turned down.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26745514
[1]: https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers
[2]: https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers/blob/2fc7...
[3]: https://github.com/linuxkit/linuxkit
[4]: https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker-container...
[5]: https://github.com/kubevirt/kubevirt
[6]: https://docs.ceph.com/
[7]: https://discuss.linuxcontainers.org/t/running-virtual-machin...
[8]: https://github.com/lxc/lxd/issues/6205
[9]: https://criu.org/Main_Page
[10]: https://linuxcontainers.org/lxd/docs/master/storage
I'm really impressed by fly.io, and the candidness with which they share some of their really awesome technology. Being container-first is the next step for PaaS IMO and they are ahead of the pack.
I aim to build a platform like theirs someday (probably not any time soon) but I don't think I'd do any of what they're doing -- it feels unnecessary. Bear with me as I recently learned that they use nomad[0] and some of these suggestions are kubernetes projects but I'd love to hear why the following technologies were decided against (if they were):
- kata-containers[1] (it does the whole container -> VM flow for you, automatically, nemu, firecracker) with multiple VMM options[2]
- linuxkit[3] (let's say you didn't go with kata-containers, this is another container->VM path)
- firecracker-containerd[4] (very minimal keep-your-container-but-run-it-as-a-VM)
- kubevirt[5] (if you just want to actually run VMs, regardless of how you built them)
- Ceph[6] for storage -- make LVM pools and just give them to Ceph, you'll get blocks, distributed filesystems (CephFS), and object gateways (S3/Swift) out of it (in the k8s space Rook manages this)
As an aside to all this, there's also LXD, which supports running "system" (user namespace isolated) containers, VMs (somewhat recent[7][8]), live migration via criu[9], management/migration of underlying filesystems, runs on LVM or zfs[10], it's basically all-in-one, but does fall behind in terms of ecosystem since everyone else is aboard the "cloud native"/"works-with-kubernetes" train.
I've basically how I plan to run a service like fly.io if I ever did -- so maybe my secret is out, but I sure would like to know just how much of this fly.io got built on (if any of it), and/or what was turned down.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26745514
[1]: https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers
[2]: https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers/blob/2fc7...
[3]: https://github.com/linuxkit/linuxkit
[4]: https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker-container...
[5]: https://github.com/kubevirt/kubevirt
[6]: https://docs.ceph.com/
[7]: https://discuss.linuxcontainers.org/t/running-virtual-machin...
[8]: https://github.com/lxc/lxd/issues/6205
[9]: https://criu.org/Main_Page
[10]: https://linuxcontainers.org/lxd/docs/master/storage
I'm really impressed by fly.io, and the candidness with which they share some of their really awesome technology. Being container-first is the next step for PaaS IMO and they are ahead of the pack.
I aim to build a platform like theirs someday (probably not any time soon) but I don't think I'd do any of what they're doing -- it feels unnecessary. Bear with me as I recently learned that they use nomad[0] and some of these suggestions are kubernetes projects but I'd love to hear why the following technologies were decided against (if they were):
- kata-containers[1] (it does the whole container -> VM flow for you, automatically, nemu, firecracker) with multiple VMM options[2]
- linuxkit[3] (let's say you didn't go with kata-containers, this is another container->VM path)
- firecracker-containerd[4] (very minimal keep-your-container-but-run-it-as-a-VM)
- kubevirt[5] (if you just want to actually run VMs, regardless of how you built them)
- Ceph[6] for storage -- make LVM pools and just give them to Ceph, you'll get blocks, distributed filesystems (CephFS), and object gateways (S3/Swift) out of it (in the k8s space Rook manages this)
As an aside to all this, there's also LXD, which supports running "system" (user namespace isolated) containers, VMs (somewhat recent[7][8]), live migration via criu[9], management/migration of underlying filesystems, runs on LVM or zfs[10], it's basically all-in-one, but does fall behind in terms of ecosystem since everyone else is aboard the "cloud native"/"works-with-kubernetes" train.
I've basically how I plan to run a service like fly.io if I ever did -- so maybe my secret is out, but I sure would like to know just how much of this fly.io got built on (if any of it), and/or what was turned down.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26745514
[1]: https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers
[2]: https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers/blob/2fc7...
[3]: https://github.com/linuxkit/linuxkit
[4]: https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker-container...
[5]: https://github.com/kubevirt/kubevirt
[6]: https://docs.ceph.com/
[7]: https://discuss.linuxcontainers.org/t/running-virtual-machin...
[8]: https://github.com/lxc/lxd/issues/6205
[9]: https://criu.org/Main_Page
[10]: https://linuxcontainers.org/lxd/docs/master/storage
I'm really impressed by fly.io, and the candidness with which they share some of their really awesome technology. Being container-first is the next step for PaaS IMO and they are ahead of the pack.
I aim to build a platform like theirs someday (probably not any time soon) but I don't think I'd do any of what they're doing -- it feels unnecessary. Bear with me as I recently learned that they use nomad[0] and some of these suggestions are kubernetes projects but I'd love to hear why the following technologies were decided against (if they were):
- kata-containers[1] (it does the whole container -> VM flow for you, automatically, nemu, firecracker) with multiple VMM options[2]
- linuxkit[3] (let's say you didn't go with kata-containers, this is another container->VM path)
- firecracker-containerd[4] (very minimal keep-your-container-but-run-it-as-a-VM)
- kubevirt[5] (if you just want to actually run VMs, regardless of how you built them)
- Ceph[6] for storage -- make LVM pools and just give them to Ceph, you'll get blocks, distributed filesystems (CephFS), and object gateways (S3/Swift) out of it (in the k8s space Rook manages this)
As an aside to all this, there's also LXD, which supports running "system" (user namespace isolated) containers, VMs (somewhat recent[7][8]), live migration via criu[9], management/migration of underlying filesystems, runs on LVM or zfs[10], it's basically all-in-one, but does fall behind in terms of ecosystem since everyone else is aboard the "cloud native"/"works-with-kubernetes" train.
I've basically how I plan to run a service like fly.io if I ever did -- so maybe my secret is out, but I sure would like to know just how much of this fly.io got built on (if any of it), and/or what was turned down.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26745514
[1]: https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers
[2]: https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers/blob/2fc7...
[3]: https://github.com/linuxkit/linuxkit
[4]: https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker-container...
[5]: https://github.com/kubevirt/kubevirt
[6]: https://docs.ceph.com/
[7]: https://discuss.linuxcontainers.org/t/running-virtual-machin...
[8]: https://github.com/lxc/lxd/issues/6205
[9]: https://criu.org/Main_Page
[10]: https://linuxcontainers.org/lxd/docs/master/storage
I'm really impressed by fly.io, and the candidness with which they share some of their really awesome technology. Being container-first is the next step for PaaS IMO and they are ahead of the pack.
I aim to build a platform like theirs someday (probably not any time soon) but I don't think I'd do any of what they're doing -- it feels unnecessary. Bear with me as I recently learned that they use nomad[0] and some of these suggestions are kubernetes projects but I'd love to hear why the following technologies were decided against (if they were):
- kata-containers[1] (it does the whole container -> VM flow for you, automatically, nemu, firecracker) with multiple VMM options[2]
- linuxkit[3] (let's say you didn't go with kata-containers, this is another container->VM path)
- firecracker-containerd[4] (very minimal keep-your-container-but-run-it-as-a-VM)
- kubevirt[5] (if you just want to actually run VMs, regardless of how you built them)
- Ceph[6] for storage -- make LVM pools and just give them to Ceph, you'll get blocks, distributed filesystems (CephFS), and object gateways (S3/Swift) out of it (in the k8s space Rook manages this)
As an aside to all this, there's also LXD, which supports running "system" (user namespace isolated) containers, VMs (somewhat recent[7][8]), live migration via criu[9], management/migration of underlying filesystems, runs on LVM or zfs[10], it's basically all-in-one, but does fall behind in terms of ecosystem since everyone else is aboard the "cloud native"/"works-with-kubernetes" train.
I've basically how I plan to run a service like fly.io if I ever did -- so maybe my secret is out, but I sure would like to know just how much of this fly.io got built on (if any of it), and/or what was turned down.
[0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26745514
[1]: https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers
[2]: https://github.com/kata-containers/kata-containers/blob/2fc7...
[3]: https://github.com/linuxkit/linuxkit
[4]: https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker-container...
[5]: https://github.com/kubevirt/kubevirt
[6]: https://docs.ceph.com/
[7]: https://discuss.linuxcontainers.org/t/running-virtual-machin...
[8]: https://github.com/lxc/lxd/issues/6205
[9]: https://criu.org/Main_Page
[10]: https://linuxcontainers.org/lxd/docs/master/storage
HashiCorp Nomad maybe ? I don't use it but I know it can orchestrate applications of any type (not only containers)
https://www.nomadproject.io
> we'd have been fighting cni complexity to make it work.
Appreciate the candid responses, thanks for taking the time. That ipv6 wireguard peering post was really fascinating I read that too. Wireguard has been quite the a game-changer in it's space as well and a lot of value IMO is just in the simplicity and difficulty of misconfiguration, even though the performance is also fantastic.
Grateful that ya'll are sharing what you're doing right/finding interesting.
Since ya'll might appreciate this, I think there's an ultimate form of all these orchestrators out there that boils everything down to the "operator pattern" -- I call it "buhzaar" but I tried to get my thoughts out of the notebook a while ago[0]. It's almost like a completely normalized DB might be -- to strip an orchestrator down to it's bare minimum, which facilitates other processes that do resource provisioning and management. Then let people bring their own things that provision resources (and maybe you some "officially supported" ones but they all live separately and iterate separately).
I didn't quite put down all the thoughts I had but you think this is too much normalization (in the same way no one wants to do 7 joins)? You could argue that both nomad and k8s are denormalized (they intrinsically "know" how to provision/manage certain things) to a certain extent, and nomad just "bundles" less.
[0]: https://gitlab.com/buhzaar/design
Our remote builders are just fly apps based on this image with an auth proxy in front. Works great https://github.com/superfly/rchab
Super great write up. This really took me back to my days of working on the container platform behind CloudFoundry.
In particular, we also used to use loop devices [1] but with AUFS mounted on them.
Later we moved over to BTRFS and then Overlay on XFS [2] to help with our unprivileged (security) story.
Also, this was a great piece of technical writing. Thanks for sharing!
1: https://github.com/cloudfoundry-attic/garden-shed/blob/6c5b0...
2: https://github.com/cloudfoundry/grootfs
Super great write up. This really took me back to my days of working on the container platform behind CloudFoundry.
In particular, we also used to use loop devices [1] but with AUFS mounted on them.
Later we moved over to BTRFS and then Overlay on XFS [2] to help with our unprivileged (security) story.
Also, this was a great piece of technical writing. Thanks for sharing!
1: https://github.com/cloudfoundry-attic/garden-shed/blob/6c5b0...
2: https://github.com/cloudfoundry/grootfs
If it's using firecracker, it's probably using KVM virtualization while ensuring that the memory the VM consumes is not pinned... that is, that the VM can be swapped out of memory. For reference, firecracker was created by AWS to run and secure AWS Lambda. The hypervisor is written in rust and uses seccomp to eliminate unnecessary system calls. They open sourced it a few years back.
What you gain is a stronger security boundary. Just FYI, since 2019, you can also do this in Kubernetes using Kata containers which will happily shim firecracker. The setup is not simple though.
https://github.com/kata-containers/documentation/wiki/Initia...
Overall, fly.io building infrastructure on this pattern is fantastic and making it accessible is fantastic. Looking forward to seeing how this continues to evolve and am happy to see more infra build on top of firecracker. Very exciting!
The other day we heard about Simplenetes [1] (in 17k lines of Bash), and now this :)
[1] https://github.com/simplenetes-io/simplenetes
I have been surprised how little good tooling there is for Elixir, and even full stack in general.
Clustering is supported, you can set libcluster to use our internal DNS to discover nodes: https://github.com/fly-apps/phoenix-liveview-cluster/blob/ma...
You also need some environment variables: https://github.com/fly-apps/phoenix-liveview-cluster/blob/ma...
And a dockerfile: https://github.com/fly-apps/phoenix-liveview-cluster/blob/ma...
We definitely need tutorials. We're hiring someone specifically to work on the entire Elixir dev UX, so hopefully we'll improve soon.