As industry moves beyond the Virtual Machine consolidation paradigm, several types of containers have come to prominence. Two flavors in particular currently enjoy the lion’s share of deployments on the Linux operating system: Docker and LXC , which pomotes the LXC vs Docker debate.

LXC vs Docker

With the Docker vs LXC discussion, we have to take into account IT operations including dev and test environments. While BSD jails has focused on IT Operations, Docker has focused on development and test organizations. As a result, Docker has established a significant lead in the race to bring containerization to market, with huge install bases and ecosystem partners, as well as advanced tools and facilities custom built for this solution. Why is this? Because Docker has come to market very early with a solution that provides:

I am text block. Click edit button to change this text. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

  • A simple way to package and deliver applications and all their dependencies, one that enables seamless application portability and mobility.
  • Relative ease of use and low administration requirements.
  • A rich set of tools and utilities.
LXC vs Docker Container Virtualization - Linux Containers - Understand Docker vs LXC and the use of containers in Dev, Test & Prod

The Docker Paradigm

Docker benefits:

  • Reduces a container to a single process which is then easily managed with Docker tools.
  • Encapsulates application configuration and delivery complexity to dramatically simplify and eliminate the need to repeat these activities manually.
  • Provides a strongly supportive user community for many aspects of using containers for significant implementations.
  • Provides a highly efficient compute environment for applications that are stateless and micro-services based, as well as many stateful applications like databases, message bus, etc.
  • Uses layers and disables storage persistence, which helps make Docker images very lightweight.
  • Is used very successfully by many groups, particularly Dev and Test, as well as microservices-based production environments.
  • Supports plug-in architecture for volume, network, and authentication to engage with partner ecosystems.

Docker limitations:

Treats containers differently from a standard host, such as sharing the host’s IP address and providing access to the container via a selectable port. This approach can cause management issues when using traditional applications and management tools that require access to Linux utilities such as cron, ssh, daemons, and logging.
Uses layers and disables storage persistence, which results in reduced disk subsystem performance.
Is not ideal for stateful applications due to limited volume management in case of container failover.
Can require some training for administrators to understand the changes to their operating procedures.
Can require changes to the application being run in the container.
Why has Docker not been adopted for the majority of IT workloads?

Because of the limitations and issues outlined above, the IT industry has searched for another type of containerization technology, one that is more operations and enterprise application friendly. Though LXC is an older containerization technology, it has reemerged as a primary option, initiating the LXC vs docker discussion, because it:

Is essentially a lightweight VM with its own hostname, IP address, file systems, and full OS init.d, and it provides direct SSH access.
Performs nearly as well as bare metal, and better than traditional VMs in almost all use cases, and particularly when the application can take advantage of parallelism.
Can efficiently run one or more multi-process applications.
Is a Linux-native, highly stable, reliable, and efficient container technology that is supported by the OS itself.
An LXC-based container can run almost any Linux-based application without sacrificing performance or operational ease of use. This makes LXC an ideal platform for containerizing performance-sensitive, data-intensive enterprise applications.

The LXC Paradigm

LXC Benefits:

  • Provides a “normal” OS environment that supports all the features and capabilities that are available in the Linux environment.
  • Behaves very much like a traditional VM and thus offers a lower barrier to entry for some organizations.
  • Does not require changes to the application being deployed.
  • Supports layers and enables Copy-On-Write cloning and snapshots, and is also file-system neutral.
  • Uses simple, intuitive, and standard IP addresses to access the containers and allows full access to the host file.
  • Supports static IP addressing, routable IPs, multiple network devices.
  • Provides full root access.
  • Allows you to create your own network interfaces.

LXC Limitations:

Does not have a nearly as prolific or responsive user community as Docker does.
Inconsistent feature support across different Linux distributions. LXC is primarily being maintained & developed by Canonical on Ubuntu platform.
In Summary

To round off the LXC vs Docker discussion, both Docker and LXC are being used in both Dev/Test as well as Production and there are strong reasons they will both continue to be used by technology leaders moving forward.

The choice to use one container type vs. another is specific to the business use case and the application type. Docker is a great platform for building new web-scale, microservices applications or optimized Dev/Test organizations, while LXC containers provide a lightweight, zero-performance-impact alternative to traditional hypervisor-based virtualization, and is thus better suited for I/O-intensive data applications.

Read this blog for more details – Containers Deep Dive – LXC vs Docker

mm

Author Mark Bayazit, Senior Solutions Architect

More posts by Mark Bayazit, Senior Solutions Architect

Join the discussion One Comment