Both provide an alternative to traditional IT infrastructure integration, but take different approaches.
I appreciated this rant by @alicegoldfuss on a impractical parts of running containers. Not many people talk about the downsides.
(shame its not on a blog somewhere where it would be readable)
It's almost like containers only improved the Dev side of DevOps hmmmm how strange
— Alice Goldfuss (@alicegoldfuss) January 26, 2017
Hope none of your containers have noisy neighbors because cgroups only go so far.
— Alice Goldfuss (@alicegoldfuss) January 26, 2017
Iptables? Different with containers? Perf profiling? Much harder with containers.
— Alice Goldfuss (@alicegoldfuss) January 26, 2017
Hope none of your containers have noisy neighbors because cgroups only go so far.
— Alice Goldfuss (@alicegoldfuss) January 26, 2017
Orchestrators can redeploy a dead instance but can they detect latency and move it to a better system? Because a slow container is hell.
— Alice Goldfuss (@alicegoldfuss) January 26, 2017
Everyone using containers means I don't have to wake someone else up to deploy their broken shit. It makes DR much faster, too.
— Alice Goldfuss (@alicegoldfuss) January 26, 2017
But that's only half of the ol DevOps pie. The other half? More burden and work. At scale.
— Alice Goldfuss (@alicegoldfuss) January 26, 2017
Why do Continue reading
In my initial OSPF Forwarding Address blog post I described a common Forwarding Address (FA) use case (at least as preached on the Internet): two ASBRs connected to a single external subnet with route redistributing configured only on one of them.
That design is clearly broken from the reliability perspective, but are there other designs where OSPF FA might make sense?
Read more ... Tax reform could equate to more spending on the network.
Cisco being an AppDynamics customer laid some of the groundwork for the deal.
BIG-IP iSeries is here; Herculon and Velcro are imminent.