> We might not want to run our production database in Docker (perhaps we'll just use Amazon RDS for example), but we can spin up a clean MySQL database in no time as a Docker container for development - leaving our development machine clean and keeping everything we do controlled and repeatable.
Curious why you wouldn't want to run it in docker in production? Wouldn't running the same container in dev/prod be helpful?
AFAIK (last I looked into this was ~6ish months ago), scaling databases in docker containers is a hard problem that currently doesn't have a clean solution. Vitess[0] is a solution, but it didn't seem quite ready for production last I looked at it.
What is there to gain by putting your database in a container? A database probably has its own dedicated server so, your probably not deploying databases often and there's the added complexity of making your data persistent.
I run my production database in a container, even if it has its own dedicated server. It's nice being able to install, start and initialize the database with a simple docker command or two to get a consistent build, instead of manually setting it up (copying/editing configuration files, deploying schemas, initializing data, setting permissions, etc.) And it makes upgrading the database very easy. Having this process automated and in source control is great. I also have the awesome ability to bundle cron in my database container to schedule regular backups. Persisting data is as simple as mounting a data volume.
One could argue it's more about the "thrills-per-minute" counts going up. I'm not saying I totally agree, but it is at least evident to me that movies from past decades spend a little more time between "thrills" than your average modern film.
I currently do this for the basics, and drop down to git at the shell for anything more complex than the one or two things GitHub's client does well. It's a decent trade off in my opinion.
According to the article the ONLY way to expand ZFS after the fact is to "replace every hard drive in the VDEV, one by one, with a higher capacity hard drive." If you have some better work-around that gives you both, you need to either explain it or link to an article that does.
My thinking was that expanding your underlying md RAID would be the same as replacing the initial disk ZFS sees with a bigger one, thus enabling easier expansion at the md level and presenting a "bigger disk" to the zfs vdev.
I haven't seen it done, it's just a theory, hence why I asked. I'm just not sure if zfs needs to see actual disks, or if it can work on top of any block device, like an md RAID.
> I assume they transfer it to local storage first before signing it so that a potentially malicious storage device can't pull a switcheroo.
In the article they mention it doesn't have local storage. It's too bad they didn't go into more detail about tamper proofing the USB portion of the ceremonies.
> This laptop has no battery, hard disk, or even a clock backup battery, and thus can’t store state once it’s unplugged.
I could be wrong and haven't explored the idea myself, but couldn't you accomplish this with something like ceph or scaleio and tmpfs/ramdisk for your block devices?
