from Hacker News

CoreOS Stable Release

by brynary on 7/25/14, 5:13 PM with 66 comments

• by rckclmbr on 7/25/14, 6:40 PM

  We recently switched (like 2 weeks ago) our project from deployment on ubuntu servers via 'git pull' managed with supervisord to docker/coreos/fleet, and it's been epic. While coreos is built for large clusters, we run a 3 host cluster in ec2, and couldn't be happier. We switched from multiple servers running 1 instance of each service to load balancing all instances on these 3 hosts. This increased uptime, made deployment and management easier, and gave us the benefits of docker as well (verifying things work locally).

  There's only 2 real problems, both of them very minor:

  * fleet managing state. We've had to manually kill containers sometimes, and destroy systemd services before we could start it again.

  * all EC2 amis use ebs backed instances. We haven't used a higher-IOPs ebs backed instance because the only delay we see are in startup times (which doesn't matter, just longer rolling deploys). But an instance-backed ami would be nice.

• by netcraft on 7/25/14, 5:28 PM

  It looks like Digital Ocean hopes to eventually support coreOS: http://digitalocean.uservoice.com/forums/136585-digital-ocea...

  I can only find a tweet that linode is "considering" it: https://twitter.com/linode/status/488045339023532032

  anyone have any other information re vps vendor support?

• by JohnTHaller on 7/25/14, 7:20 PM

  I'm a bit confused on the licensing here. CoreOS says it's Apache 2.0 licensed. But it also says its Linux. If it includes the Linux kernel, as it appears to, then those bits is licensed under the GPL and can not be re-licensed as Apache 2.0. So, it's a bit disingenuous to claim the whole package is Apache 2.0, since it isn't.

• by brynary on 7/25/14, 6:08 PM

  I'm very excited about this release. CoreOS, Docker and etcd are a great fit for one another. I love the separation of concerns that is provided.

  IMHO, the weakest part of CoreOS is fleet (https://github.com/coreos/fleet). Compared to the other components in the stack, it just feels very inelegant. The systemd configuration syntax is complex and ugly. I wonder if there will be work invested to upgrade fleet to something that is as elegant as e.g. etcd/Docker/CoreOS itself.

• by otterley on 7/25/14, 8:55 PM

  I'm puzzled as to why it's called "stable," while at the same time it appears to require btrfs-on-root to be useful (i.e. for hosting Docker containers) but that part is "experimental."

  Can someone from CoreOS clarify?

• by outside1234 on 7/25/14, 7:16 PM

  Super great to see CoreOS making it to its first stable release. It really feels like the future.

  I've been reading about using vulcand to do frontend deploys and traffic management (http://coreos.com/blog/zero-downtime-frontend-deploys-vulcan...) and using ambassadors to do dynamic routing to backend stores (http://coreos.com/blog/docker-dynamic-ambassador-powered-by-...)

  But it is hard to get my head around this - has anyone actually tied all of these concepts together in a deployment that they've written up?

• by jvandyke on 7/25/14, 5:27 PM

  Flynn 1.0 release in 3, 2, 1... crosses fingers

• by devNoise on 7/25/14, 9:18 PM

  I've been using Vagrant/Virtual to run Ubuntu LTS for my Javascript dev env. Does it make sense switch to CoreOS? I generally run it as a headless server. No X-windows or GUI needed.

• by jimmcslim on 7/25/14, 11:38 PM

  I know Hyper-V isn't particularly sexy around these parts but it appears to work there as well. It doesn't support the Hyper-V integration services but that's par for the course for most Linux distributions.