<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:foaf="http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/" xmlns:og="http://ogp.me/ns#" xmlns:rdfs="http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#" xmlns:schema="http://schema.org/" xmlns:sioc="http://rdfs.org/sioc/ns#" xmlns:sioct="http://rdfs.org/sioc/types#" xmlns:skos="http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" version="2.0" xml:base="https://www.linuxjournal.com/tag/virtual-machines">
  <channel>
    <title>Virtual Machines</title>
    <link>https://www.linuxjournal.com/tag/virtual-machines</link>
    <description/>
    <language>en</language>
    
    <item>
  <title>Containers—Not Virtual Machines—Are the Future Cloud</title>
  <link>https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/containers%E2%80%94not-virtual-machines%E2%80%94are-future-cloud</link>
  <description>  &lt;div data-history-node-id="1086329" class="layout layout--onecol"&gt;
    &lt;div class="layout__region layout__region--content"&gt;
      
            &lt;div class="field field--name-field-node-image field--type-image field--label-hidden field--item"&gt;  &lt;img src="https://www.linuxjournal.com/sites/default/files/nodeimage/story/11442f1.jpg" width="482" height="480" alt="" typeof="foaf:Image" class="img-responsive" /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      
            &lt;div class="field field--name-node-author field--type-ds field--label-hidden field--item"&gt;by &lt;a title="View user profile." href="https://www.linuxjournal.com/users/davis-strauss" lang="" about="https://www.linuxjournal.com/users/davis-strauss" typeof="schema:Person" property="schema:name" datatype="" xml:lang=""&gt;David Strauss&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      
            &lt;div class="field field--name-body field--type-text-with-summary field--label-hidden field--item"&gt;&lt;p&gt;
Cloud infrastructure providers like Amazon Web Service sell virtual machines.
EC2 revenue is expected to surpass $1B in revenue this year. That's a lot
of VMs. 
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
It's not hard to see why there is such demand. You get the ability to scale
up or down, guaranteed computational resources, security isolation and API
access for provisioning it all, without any of the overhead of managing
physical servers. 
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
But, you are also paying for lot of increasingly avoidable overhead in the form
of running a full-blown operating system image for each virtual machine. This
approach has become an unnecessarily heavyweight solution to the underlying
question of how to best run applications in the cloud. 
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;img src="http://www.linuxjournal.com/files/linuxjournal.com/ufiles/imagecache/large-550px-centered/u1002061/11442f1.jpg" alt="" title="" class="imagecache-large-550px-centered" /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
Figure 1. Traditional virtualization and paravirtualization require a full operating
system image for each instance.
&lt;/p&gt;
 
&lt;p&gt;
Until recently it has been assumed that OS virtualization is the only path to
provide appropriate isolation for applications running on a server. These
assumptions are quickly becoming dated, thanks to recent underlying
improvements to how the Linux kernel can now manage isolation between
applications. 
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
Containers now can be used as an alternative to OS-level virtualization to run
multiple isolated systems on a single host. Containers within a single
operating system are much more efficient, and because of this efficiency,
they will underpin the future of the cloud infrastructure industry in place of VM
architecture. 
&lt;/p&gt;

 
&lt;img src="http://www.linuxjournal.com/files/linuxjournal.com/ufiles/imagecache/large-550px-centered/u1002061/11442f2.jpg" alt="" title="" class="imagecache-large-550px-centered" /&gt;&lt;p&gt;
Figure 2. Containers can share a single operating system and, optionally, other binary
and library resources.
&lt;/p&gt;
 

&lt;h3&gt;
How We Got Here&lt;/h3&gt;

&lt;p&gt;
There is a good reason why we buy by the virtual machine today: containers used
to be terrible, if they existed in any useful form at all. Let's hop back to
2005 for a moment. "chroot" certainly didn't (and still doesn't) meet
the resource and security isolation goals for multi-tenant designs.
"nice" is a winner-takes-all scheduling mechanism. The
"fair"
resource scheduling in the kernel is often too fair, equally balancing
resources between a hungry, unimportant process and a hungry, important one.
Memory and file descriptor limits offer no gradient between normal operation
and crashing an application that's overstepped its boundaries. 
&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
      
            &lt;div class="field field--name-node-link field--type-ds field--label-hidden field--item"&gt;  &lt;a href="https://www.linuxjournal.com/content/containers%E2%80%94not-virtual-machines%E2%80%94are-future-cloud" hreflang="und"&gt;Go to Full Article&lt;/a&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;
      
    &lt;/div&gt;
  &lt;/div&gt;

</description>
  <pubDate>Mon, 17 Jun 2013 19:16:39 +0000</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>David Strauss</dc:creator>
    <guid isPermaLink="false">1086329 at https://www.linuxjournal.com</guid>
    </item>

  </channel>
</rss>
