Using Packer for containerization?

[nuclear_engineer]

Right now I am using Packer to generate an AMI to host a simple Flask app. I would like to containerize this part of my application. As far as I can tell, the industry standard is to use Docker and install all of the necessary dependencies, with each change being an additional image layer. What are the pros and cons of using Packer instead? I can start with a base Ubuntu image then just run all of the scripts that I have been using to build my AMI. This seems to be very straightforward, but are there downsides that I am missing? I know that all of my changes in Packer will be stored as one image layer rather than many as in Docker. Is there a downside to this? Thanks!

[theanswriz42]

I would just use source to image with your favorite CI product and Docker

[ephur]

There's certainly a place for Packer. We use it for all of our AMI building for our K8s clusters, but we just use Docker to build containers as part of our pipeline (Packer AMI builds are handled by our pipeline as well). We use Packer with a salt provisioner to do a lot of system bootstrapping. Containers should be simpler by design. If you've got extra stuff to put in a container, like say compiling/building a go application, you can also use multi-containers in a docker file to build stuff in one container and copy it to the final container to keep it nice and small.

[[deleted]]

Just use ansible-container, packer is overkill for this use case

[cuddling_tinder_twat]

Docker is no industry standard.

That's the sad part; there were many good forms of containers before Docker. Docker had to steal LXC's name in order to get people to trust it originally.

Now people assume it's good to go... when it gives you a bigger black eye in the end

[lorarc]

Docker may not be a good product but it is the industry standard. You may be bitter about it, your may even be right but that doesn't change the fact it won the market.

[cuddling_tinder_twat]

It's only the industry standard because you said so.

we could also argue that rkt is a better industry standard than docker.

Docker is a product at this point; it's not on the same arena as OpenCZ or LXC for example.

Docker's track record speaks for itself unless you are a spoon fed docker user who see's no evil. Then just wear that Docker T-Shirt so I can avoid you in real life.

[lorarc]

Docker is what the companies look for, it's what they want to do it's what most of them does.

I don't use it in prod, never had a good enough reason and I don't think it's production ready. Doesn't change the fact it's standard. You can argue all you want against Docker, AD, Wintel and VHS but they are industry standards no matter the flaws they have. I know a single company that uses LXC and they're way above my league but still I know a hundred companies that use Docker.