like flatpak. when you don’t build all your containers on the same base image and shared layers, then you’ll store lots of slightly different versions of the same libraries and other files, both on disk, and then in memory
but containerization does not use VMs. containers share the same kernel, but userspace and resources are separated with namespaces. it has a very little overhead
Yes that being my point. When you said wasteful I was thinking you were criticizing them vs VMS which makes no sense.
Even the duplication of layers makes little sense as one, storage is cheap and two, even duplicated they far more than make up for it without needing VMS per.
But then I also see you aren’t op who I originally directed the question to.
How is it wasteful?
like flatpak. when you don’t build all your containers on the same base image and shared layers, then you’ll store lots of slightly different versions of the same libraries and other files, both on disk, and then in memory
I see. I was more thinking in terms of CPU/RAM resources where it’s far cheaper to just run a single process instead of a VM for it, etc.
but containerization does not use VMs. containers share the same kernel, but userspace and resources are separated with namespaces. it has a very little overhead
Yes that being my point. When you said wasteful I was thinking you were criticizing them vs VMS which makes no sense.
Even the duplication of layers makes little sense as one, storage is cheap and two, even duplicated they far more than make up for it without needing VMS per.
But then I also see you aren’t op who I originally directed the question to.