It's similar.. it's actually a bit closer to just running a normal process multiple times than Docker is. For example, commands from the snap are in your local path, the child/parent process relationship is the traditional one instead of being the child of a daemon, and so on.
Even then, the processes live in a confined world, with its boundaries defined by which interface connections are established. On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Luther Goh Lu Feng <elf...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Thanks Mark, your explanation is clear. But I am also thinking along > similar lines to Gustavo's suggestion of running a snap multiple times, and > wondering if that is the same as having multiple docker processes. > > > -- Luther > > On Wednesday, January 25, 2017 10:13 PM, Gustavo Niemeyer < > gustavo.nieme...@canonical.com> wrote: > > > > > Interesting.. I actually don't see that line between snaps and Docker. > Just like you can run "docker run mysql" several times, one may run > "mysnap.mysql" several times. In both cases the daemon will be visible to > the external world via a separate port of the local host's public IP > address. In both cases mysql will be isolated from the local environment by > confinement. > > It's even a bit more convenient to do that using a snap. Easier to manage > the process on a systemd unit, for example, since the mysql process will > indeed be a child of systemd/etc instead of a child of the docker daemon. > > > > On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:51 AM, Mark Shuttleworth <m...@ubuntu.com> > wrote: > > > >The best way to think of this is to know that snaps are GREAT when you > >have a precise 1:1 relationship between "machines" and "running > >instances". And Docker is GREAT when you want an elastic relationship. > >So for example, if you want a MySQL "appliance" on a device, there will > >only ever be 1 MySQL instance on that device, you want a snap. If you > >want a cluster where there may be 1-many instances of MySQl on each > >actual machine or VM, then you want Docker. > > > >The reason for this is that Docker gives each running process its own IP > >address. That's perfect for the hyper-elastic case - each extra MySQSL > >is just another IP address to talk to. But if you have a machine where > >you already have an IP address and all you want is a MySQL there then a > >snap will be easier. > > > >This is why a snap of the Docker daemon makes such sense - in your > >cluster, you want exactly one copy of Docker itself running on each > >machine, and that is best pulled in as a snap. That docker process then > >manages an arbitrary number of docker processes on each machine. > > > >Make sense? > >Mark > > > > > > > > > > > >-- > >Snapcraft mailing list > >Snapcraft@lists.snapcraft.io > >Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailm > an/listinfo/snapcraft > > > > > -- > > gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net > -- gustavo @ http://niemeyer.net
-- Snapcraft mailing list Snapcraft@lists.snapcraft.io Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snapcraft
