Skip to main content

Return to Answer

Post Timeline

just fix some typos
Source Link
StayOnTarget
StayOnTarget
  • 13.5k
  • 11
  • 67
  • 120

It's now long time since I posted this question, but it seems, like it still get hits... So I decided to answer it - in fact mainly the question, which is in the title (the questions in the text are carefully answered by Curt J. Sampson).

So, the discussion of the "main" question: if containers are not VMs, then why do we need VMs for them?

As you may guess, I am working on windows (on Linux this question would not emerge, because on Linux one does not need VMs for docker).

The reason, why we need a VM for containers in WinodowsWindows is pretty obvious (probably this is the reason, why nobody mentions it explicitly). As was already mentioned here and it many other FAQs, containers reuse kernel and some other resources of the hosting OS. Taking into account, that most of the containers available out there are based on Linux, one may conclude, that those containers need host OS to provide Linux kernel for them to run. Which is not natively easy on Windows (I am not sure, may bemaybe it is now possible with Linux subsystem). This is why on Windows we need one VM, which runs Linux and docker service inside this VM. And then, when we start the containers, they are also started inside this VM (and reuse the resources of its Linux OS). All the containers run inside the same VM. 

Getting a bit more technical: by default docker uses Hyper-V to run this linuxLinux VM, but one can also use Docker-Toolbox, which uses Oracle VirtualBox. By the way, VM can be freely seen in the Virtual Box interface. Nice part is that Docker (or Docker toolbox) takes care about managing this VM and we don't need to care about it.

Now some bonus question, which that time confused me even more. One may think: "Ok, it is clear now. If we run Linux container on WinodwsWindows OS, then we need Linux kernel and thus need VM with Linux. But if we run Windows container on Windows (by the way, it exists), then VM should not be needed, right?..." Answer: "wrong" (or almost wrong). :) The problem is, that the Windows based containers (at least those, which I saw) use windows server kernel, which is not available e.g. in Windows 10. Thus one still need VM with special version of Windows Server running on it. In fact MS even created special version of Windows Server, which can be run on VM for development purposes free of charge specifically to enable development of Windows-Server based containers. If my understanding is correct, those containers should be possible to run without VM on Windows Server. I should admit, that I never checked it though.

I hope, that this messy explanation may help someone to better understand the topic.

It's now long time since I posted this question, but it seems, like it still get hits... So I decided to answer it - in fact mainly the question, which is in the title (the questions in the text are carefully answered by Curt J. Sampson).

So, the discussion of the "main" question: if containers are not VMs, then why do we need VMs for them?

As you may guess, I am working on windows (on Linux this question would not emerge, because on Linux one does not need VMs for docker).

The reason, why we need a VM for containers in Winodows is pretty obvious (probably this is the reason, why nobody mentions it explicitly). As was already mentioned here and it many other FAQs, containers reuse kernel and some other resources of the hosting OS. Taking into account, that most of the containers available out there are based on Linux, one may conclude, that those containers need host OS to provide Linux kernel for them to run. Which is not natively easy on Windows (I am not sure, may be it is now possible with Linux subsystem). This is why on Windows we need one VM, which runs Linux and docker service inside this VM. And then, when we start the containers, they are also started inside this VM (and reuse the resources of its Linux OS). All the containers run inside the same VM. Getting a bit more technical: by default docker uses Hyper-V to run this linux VM, but one can also use Docker-Toolbox, which uses Oracle VirtualBox. By the way, VM can be freely seen in the Virtual Box interface. Nice part is that Docker (or Docker toolbox) takes care about managing this VM and we don't need to care about it.

Now some bonus question, which that time confused me even more. One may think: "Ok, it is clear now. If we run Linux container on Winodws OS, then we need Linux kernel and thus need VM with Linux. But if we run Windows container on Windows (by the way, it exists), then VM should not be needed, right?..." Answer: "wrong" (or almost wrong). :) The problem is, that the Windows based containers (at least those, which I saw) use windows server kernel, which is not available e.g. in Windows 10. Thus one still need VM with special version of Windows Server running on it. In fact MS even created special version of Windows Server, which can be run on VM for development purposes free of charge specifically to enable development of Windows-Server based containers. If my understanding is correct, those containers should be possible to run without VM on Windows Server. I should admit, that I never checked it though.

I hope, that this messy explanation may help someone to better understand the topic.

It's now long time since I posted this question, but it seems, like it still get hits... So I decided to answer it - in fact mainly the question, which is in the title (the questions in the text are carefully answered by Curt J. Sampson).

So, the discussion of the "main" question: if containers are not VMs, then why do we need VMs for them?

As you may guess, I am working on windows (on Linux this question would not emerge, because on Linux one does not need VMs for docker).

The reason why we need a VM for containers in Windows is pretty obvious (probably this is the reason why nobody mentions it explicitly). As was already mentioned here and it many other FAQs, containers reuse kernel and some other resources of the hosting OS. Taking into account, that most of the containers available out there are based on Linux, one may conclude, that those containers need host OS to provide Linux kernel for them to run. Which is not natively easy on Windows (I am not sure, maybe it is now possible with Linux subsystem). This is why on Windows we need one VM, which runs Linux and docker service inside this VM. And then, when we start the containers, they are also started inside this VM (and reuse the resources of its Linux OS). All the containers run inside the same VM. 

Getting a bit more technical: by default docker uses Hyper-V to run this Linux VM, but one can also use Docker-Toolbox, which uses Oracle VirtualBox. By the way, VM can be freely seen in the Virtual Box interface. Nice part is that Docker (or Docker toolbox) takes care about managing this VM and we don't need to care about it.

Now some bonus question, which that time confused me even more. One may think: "Ok, it is clear now. If we run Linux container on Windows OS, then we need Linux kernel and thus need VM with Linux. But if we run Windows container on Windows (by the way, it exists), then VM should not be needed, right?..." Answer: "wrong" (or almost wrong). :) The problem is, that the Windows based containers (at least those, which I saw) use windows server kernel, which is not available e.g. in Windows 10. Thus one still need VM with special version of Windows Server running on it. In fact MS even created special version of Windows Server, which can be run on VM for development purposes free of charge specifically to enable development of Windows-Server based containers. If my understanding is correct, those containers should be possible to run without VM on Windows Server. I should admit, that I never checked it though.

I hope, that this messy explanation may help someone to better understand the topic.

Source Link
Dmitrii Semikin
Dmitrii Semikin
  • 2.7k
  • 2
  • 24
  • 27

It's now long time since I posted this question, but it seems, like it still get hits... So I decided to answer it - in fact mainly the question, which is in the title (the questions in the text are carefully answered by Curt J. Sampson).

So, the discussion of the "main" question: if containers are not VMs, then why do we need VMs for them?

As you may guess, I am working on windows (on Linux this question would not emerge, because on Linux one does not need VMs for docker).

The reason, why we need a VM for containers in Winodows is pretty obvious (probably this is the reason, why nobody mentions it explicitly). As was already mentioned here and it many other FAQs, containers reuse kernel and some other resources of the hosting OS. Taking into account, that most of the containers available out there are based on Linux, one may conclude, that those containers need host OS to provide Linux kernel for them to run. Which is not natively easy on Windows (I am not sure, may be it is now possible with Linux subsystem). This is why on Windows we need one VM, which runs Linux and docker service inside this VM. And then, when we start the containers, they are also started inside this VM (and reuse the resources of its Linux OS). All the containers run inside the same VM. Getting a bit more technical: by default docker uses Hyper-V to run this linux VM, but one can also use Docker-Toolbox, which uses Oracle VirtualBox. By the way, VM can be freely seen in the Virtual Box interface. Nice part is that Docker (or Docker toolbox) takes care about managing this VM and we don't need to care about it.

Now some bonus question, which that time confused me even more. One may think: "Ok, it is clear now. If we run Linux container on Winodws OS, then we need Linux kernel and thus need VM with Linux. But if we run Windows container on Windows (by the way, it exists), then VM should not be needed, right?..." Answer: "wrong" (or almost wrong). :) The problem is, that the Windows based containers (at least those, which I saw) use windows server kernel, which is not available e.g. in Windows 10. Thus one still need VM with special version of Windows Server running on it. In fact MS even created special version of Windows Server, which can be run on VM for development purposes free of charge specifically to enable development of Windows-Server based containers. If my understanding is correct, those containers should be possible to run without VM on Windows Server. I should admit, that I never checked it though.

I hope, that this messy explanation may help someone to better understand the topic.