Created a thread in docker's mailing list https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/docker-user/15oN-EmM470.
Agree with you guys, that docker is not needed to run processes, but the "It should be possible to just create aufs mount if needed" part is very cumbersome, and docker has the high-level code to simplify this process a lot. As for aufs maturity, I cannot find the prooflink, but I've definitely seen it somewhere in the docker's block or their wiki, that aufs proved to be very stable. But docker has other storage backends, which may be used even when aufs is not available, and it abstracts all this stuff away from the user. On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Javier Guerra Giraldez <[email protected]>wrote: > On Thu, Jan 2, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Łukasz Mierzwa <[email protected]> > wrote: > > It should be possible to just create aufs mount if needed with one of > many > > hooks available in uWSGI (probably --hook-pre-jail in this case). > > > +1 on this. > > docker is a very nice tool for handling the containers, but i think > uWSGI is in a far better position to handle its own lxc/aufs > containers. > > BTW: many, many years ago i looked around for layered filesystems and > found several half-baked solutions but nothing reliable. i lost track > of the issue, but now i'm curious: is aufs generally considered a > good, complete, solid implementation? > > > -- > Javier > _______________________________________________ > uWSGI mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi >
_______________________________________________ uWSGI mailing list [email protected] http://lists.unbit.it/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uwsgi
