Re: Unified container support in Aurora

Is the file system isolation going to provide aufs/overlayfs etc kind of drivers to store the layers to Steve's point with COW because that is a key part of docker performance? Also docker has started to support cgroup parents flag (has some issues) but once fixed can be used to form a cgroups

Jenkins build is back to normal : aurora-packaging-nightly #74

See

Re: Unified container support in Aurora

Steve, The motivation for unified container support in Mesos is to support docker image format without relying on docker runtime (i.e., docker daemon), because docker's runtime isolation (e.g., cpu, memory, etc) is not compatible with Mesos's runtime isolation. The open container initiative

Re: Unified container support in Aurora

I think the unified container support will eventually be superior to the current docker implementation, however after reading over the design doc, a few critical pieces are missing that makes it basically a non starter for now. - Lack of support for a docker registry removes one of the two biggest

Re: Unified container support in Aurora

I'm in favor of eventually deprecating the existing Docker implementation and moving to Mesos unified container support. The issues with the existing Docker integration (including MESOS-1659) makes me think that we should adopt something that is better integrated with the Mesos model. I'd be curiou

Re: Unified container support in Aurora

Hi Maxim, we would be interested in the unified container support as well. It would allow us to independently update the major version of the slave OS and the OS used within containers. Nevertheless, while very interesting for the future, it is not a pressing issue for us right now. In additio