5/27/2019 0 Comments Docker Toolbox Vs Docker For MacMay 5, 2017 - I am a Mac user, so I'll be focusing on the Mac version of Docker's new application, but I'll highlight any significant differences with the Windows. Let me put it to the practical prospective: • At home I run Windows 10 Insider Preview, with Hyper-V role happily enabled. Thus I use 'Docker for Windows', which provides some benefits like Windows containers; • But while I’m at work I had to disable Hyper-V role on Windows 10 machine due to heavy investments in the Vmware images we done for development and debugging process. And Vmware is very incompatible with Hyper-V (or any other VMM which would use VTx). Thus I’m running boot2docker based “Docker Toolbox” with vmwareworkstation driver. The boot2docker approach is nicely portable to different kinds of VMMs beyond Hyper-V, and allows us to keep our investments in virtual machines created, but has significant disadvantage - they do not run Windows-based containers. In a dev team where we have multiple operating systems (Windows 7, Windows 10, OS X) I’ve found Docker Toolbox to be preferable. Enabling Hyper-V in Windows isn’t always ideal (or possible) especially if you rely on Virtualbox on the same machine for doing other things, which means Docker Toolbox is still something that we’ll need to rely on for the foreseeable future. If your OS X is of the later versions you can just add a new drive to backup to and it will use both drives if present or jut one or the other whichever is in use at the time. Wd my passport for mac. You can’t copy Time Machine backups around as they are not only actual files but also special timestamped links as well (easy explained), so if you try the Mac OS will give you errors and prevent you from doing that. If you should be able to do it in some strange way the backup will probably be of no use anymore. With this fast Tunderbolt drive you should start a new TM backup as it will go very fast. I hope Docker Toolbox continues to receive client updates for a while yet because it definitely solves a different need than the “native” Windows and Mac installers. Last year(2016) Docker for Windows & Hyper-V was unreliable on my Windows 10-Pro laptop. After switching back & forth between Hyper-V and Virtualbox, I settled on Docker Toolbox. ![]() This year(2017) significant upgrade on Windows-10 occurred and Docker Toolbox became inoperable, despite numerous upgrade & reinstall attempts. Kindle app for computer mac. This forced me to re-examine Docker for Windows, which seems to have improved over last year’s offering. It’s only compatible, so far, with Windows-10 Pro and seems stable enough. I appreciate its auto-upgrade feature which was not available with Docker Toolbox. I may at some point, if I need Virtualbox for another project, try to run it in a container under Docker for Windows. I’m very impressed with Docker overall. I’m concerned if Docker Toolbox is to be described as ‘legacy’ if this means that no other ‘non-Hyper-V windows’ solution is to be officially supported by Docker going forward? Perhaps both a Docker for Windows (Hyper-V) and a Docker for Windows (Non-Hyper-V) approach can be officially adopted? For all the many reasons mentioned by others on the docker forum it would appear to make sense if a “non-Hyper-V docker for windows” target was maintained with current docker code or if this is not going to be possible, perhaps Docker could ‘officially recommend’ another non-Hyper-V virutualisation process eg VMWare/Virtualbox distro and usage process for windows users who either don’t want to or can’t run Hyper-V? I guess a new docker for windows user can just try installing docker to a Centos virtualbox vm but for new to docker windows users who may not be sufficiently skilled in linux etc, having an ‘officially supported’ installation approach that deals specifically with usage for non-Hyper-V windows users would be very helpful.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |