Hacker News Reader

Comment by iJohnDoe | Hacker News Reader

I’m a huge fan of nspawn. Always wanted to use VMs instead of Docker and nspawn feels like a natural choice.

Its nice having the flexibility for both system containers and application containers. It does feel though that most people forget that nspawn does both, and that it only can do system containers.

Agreed, I briefly forgot it can do both. Thanks for the reminder.

I went down the rabbit hole of Incus and once I realized it requires the full network aspects to be configured, then I figured using KVM, QEMU, Libvirt was more practical. Then stumbled into nspawn and it was basically ready to go.

Although, I haven’t done enough research to know if Incus provides certain useful capabilities.

I'm a huge fan of Incus. VMs, LXC, and OCI containers all under the same Docker-like CLI interface. I run it on a local server and on a dedicated server in a local DC, and connect to both remotely using Nebula.

It includes project-level resource separation, advanced networking, clustering, snapshots, and more. Plus, Stéphane Graber is super responsive on the forums and issue tracker. I bounced off of Proxmox, and can't recommend Incus more for hypervisor-type scenarios.

Do you have any experience with multi-node operation with Incus? I like the simplicity of Proxmox for moving VMs and LXCs around but I haven't settled on a solution for OCI. K3S is an option but it's a big jump. I'm moving towards Fedora CoreOS VMs at the moment for live migration and security isolation.

I run Incus, but I had to uncluster my home lab to allow to have zfs duplicated containers (as cold standby) on another physical instance. It may have changed now, but it was not possible to have two near identical container, one up one down, on the same cluster.

By nspawn you mean systemd-nspawn?[1]

[1] https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Systemd-nspawn

Reply on news.ycombinator.com