| 1 |
On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 10:17 AM, Alec Warner <antarus@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> The containers are nominally stateless, so there is less chance of 'gunk' |
| 3 |
> building up and surprising me later. It also makes the lifecycle simpler. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> Obviously its somewhat harder for stateful services (databases, etc.) but I |
| 6 |
> suspect things like SANs (or Ceph) can really provide the storage backing |
| 7 |
> for the database. |
| 8 |
> (database "schema" cleanliness is perhaps a separate issue that I'll defer |
| 9 |
> for another time ;p) |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Restated: |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Containers are stateless, which prevents programs from munging state, |
| 15 |
because there is none. This is okay except when one needs state, which |
| 16 |
one does for most desktop activities. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
This implies it doesn't solve the problem. Working around it may be |
| 19 |
valid, but only if state can be preserved. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Cheers, |
| 22 |
R0b0t1 |
Archives