ZM Docker only?

[mrd]

I've been involved with the ZM community on and off for many years and have witnessed the evolution of the product. Recently it seems there have been some big steps forward and one of them is running ZM in a Docker container. I've tried it out and worked with containers pretty extensively on other enterprise software things I do for a day job so I'm wondering if anyone (especially the current core developers) has any opinion about the idea of only distributing ZM as a docker image going forward. It seems logical and much simpler than maintaining many distro versions and packages.

Just curious.

[bbunge]

Like many things there are those who like containers and those who don't. I am of the later and feel a container puts an extra burden on a processor that could be used elsewhere. I also feel the same about VM's for production equipment.
While getting the packaged install script to do more functions would seem the way to go it would limit install options. As of now there are install options for Apache or NGINX with MySQL or mariadb. And these can be done with install scripts.

[mrd]

Valid point.

In my work in enterprise storage distributed systems we could find no measurable performance bottleneck or adverse issues while running the services in or out of a container.

I'm no expert on the various DB and webserver options, but it seems that those that are could probably agree on a single option that does the job best. Apache is probably not the best choice though.

I'm just thinking of how the product could become as light weight and simple to use and deploy as possible. It has come a long way, but it still requires a decent amount of skill and experience to install and run. Especially when you start to do more advanced things.

Thank you for the reply and thoughts!

[bbunge]

Valid point.

In my work in enterprise storage distributed systems we could find no measurable performance bottleneck or adverse issues while running the services in or out of a container.

I'm no expert on the various DB and webserver options, but it seems that those that are could probably agree on a single option that does the job best. Apache is probably not the best choice though.

I'm just thinking of how the product could become as light weight and simple to use and deploy as possible. It has come a long way, but it still requires a decent amount of skill and experience to install and run. Especially when you start to do more advanced things.

Thank you for the reply and thoughts!

I have a couple of install scripts that are simple to run for Ubuntu installs. Pretty much fool proof but not ID10T proof. See the ZM WIKI for Ubuntu...