The software I build is written for windows and built on windows.
Right now I am in the process of finding a solution to isolate my build environments.
I am comparing two options - using virtual machines and using containers. I am also considering the issue of performance.
Unfortunately windows docker containers can only be run from windows.
Do windows containers run faster than windows virtual machines?
Does docker on windows use a virtual machine to host a windows container?
It completely depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Containerization and Virtualization have a lot in common but have different architectural designs. So you should rather try to invest some time and think about the things you want to do. Or you should specify your question and tell us what your main goal is.
Maybe you should check out this https://www.ibm.com/cloud/blog/containers-vs-vms and this https://www.edureka.co/blog/docker-for-windows/
For installing docker on windows home edition , there are two options if I don't want to run virtual machine.
Which is better :
installing docker desktop ?
installing using wsl2 ?
I'm not going to answer which one is better but instead present some points you should consider before choosing one. However, if you're using Windows Home Edition, I'm afraid your choice is to either:
upgrade to Windows Pro and install Docker with the original Windows backend
install WSL2, then install Docker with the WSL2 backend
This is mentioned on the Docker website. Instructions for Windows Home/WSL2 here and for Windows Pro/Non-WSL2 here.
Bind mount performance
If you care about bind-mounts, where you share a directory between the host OS filesystem (Windows) and the container filesystem (usually Linux), you'll want to compare performance between these two options.
If you want faster bind-mount performance on WSL2, you should mount shared files in the Linux filesystem (the part of your system dedicated to WSL2) for mounting. So you'd want to use \\wsl$\Ubuntu-18.04\home\<user name>\Project instead of C:\Users\<user name>\Project. Docker has more info about this here and Microsoft has more info here.
Start time
Other points mentioned on the Docker website include that Docker has a faster cold-start time with the WSL2 backend compared to the previous version.
Changing Docker system settings
Using WSL2, you'll also have to modify the WSL2 configuration if you want to reduce the amount of memory Docker can use for example. See details here as referenced from the Docker on WSL2 best practices.
I see no two options, at least in the terms you used stating the questions.
On Windows 10 you install Docker Desktop and this can have WSL2 as backend.
On Windows 10 Home, specifically, you can install Docker Desktop with WSL2 backend.
For reference see "Install Docker Desktop on Windows Home" documentation page where only one option is described, and not two.
My question is: If you use Docker tool box (that is required for windows 10 home to run Docker) you are essentially using a virtual machine (vm)?
If you are using a vm already the only reason to use docker from that point is to save on many more multiple instances?
Meaning if you only want 1 extra (guest instance): you can have a vm. Though, with docker (toolbox on windows 10 home) you would have 1 vm and it runs docker?
The only way that is useful is if you want many more instances as in: 1 vm + 1 docker or + 1000 more dockers?
Or am I missing something?
Yes, docker toolbox uses Oracle VirtualBox cause Windows 7, 8, and Windows 10 home cannot use Hyper V. And yes, If you are using a VM already the only reason to use docker from that point is to save on many more multiple instances but it also allows easy backup and deployment. But you are losing a decent amount of memory when running a VM and then even more when you are running docker.
So although Docker CE will tell you your Windows doesn't support Hyper-V, this isn't always the case (if you check in System Info you might have Hyper-V enabled, if you're on an Insider build or many builds on GPU computers after Anniversary update then you probably have Hyper-V on Windows 10 Home). There are a few workarounds until the Docker team addresses this issue.
You could use Docker from inside WSL (Windows Subsystem for Linux). Microsoft claims WSL accesses everything directly without Hyper-V so this should be theoretically at the same speed. Of course you can't use your GPU at all because of limitations with GPU passthrough on WSL, which you can ask to be resolved here.
You can also use Docker Toolbox as the other answer stated with Virtualbox, but this will be inherently much slower as you're virtualizing a container inside a virtualized container. You should be able to theoretically get GPU support through this, as well as other features e.g. GUI that you wouldn't be able to with WSL.
To answer the "usefulness" portion of the question:
It's also useful if you run code on a server, but need to develop/debug/update it. You want to test it locally, but to make sure the environment in which it executes is the same (to avoid unexpected, environment specific behavior), you use Docker both locally and on the server. In such a case, even though it's slow, I'll spin up a VM on my W10 Home laptop and run Docker in it.
The greatest feature of the Windows 10 Home May 2020 Update is Windows Subsystem for Linus 2. You can docker in it without the need for a complete virtual machine as in Virtual Box.
Install Docker Desktop that it will automatically indentify WSL2.
Recently, a native Docker client for Windows was released (>= Windows 7).
I wonder: is it possible to forward access to physical devices, running Windows as host?
With a *nix host, this seems to be possible with the following syntax:
docker run -t -i --device=/dev/ttyUSB0 ubuntu bash
(as proposed here) which would forward the USB device /dev/ttyUSB0 on a *nix system to the docker image.
A description of the --device flag can be found in the docker docs.
What would be the syntax for a Windows host?
Windows USB devices are not currently available to Docker containers run with Docker for Windows.
Answered by a Docker staff member on the 7th of July 2017 in the Docker forum.
https://forums.docker.com/t/exposing-docker-to-usb-device-in-windows-10-with-docker-toolbox/29290/3
This answer is likely to get outdated in some time, provided they will allow for this feature somehow.
This is a bad practice as it goes against the design philosophy of containers.
If you find yourself needing access to a hardware device, it's better to consider full virtualization such as VMware, Hyper-V, KVM/QEMU, Xen and so on.
However, the "proper" way is to design your system
so that hardware is abstracted into a network service. In this way, you deploy the service to physical machines to which the hardware is attached, and call them over the network. I don't know if this is possible in your case, but such decoupling provides a significant architectural advantage.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about a specific programming problem, a software algorithm, or software tools primarily used by programmers. If you believe the question would be on-topic on another Stack Exchange site, you can leave a comment to explain where the question may be able to be answered.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I am doing .net programming in addition to c and c++ development and want more flexibility on my home machine. I want to be able to have both Linux (probably Ubuntu) and Windows Vista on my home computer. Is there a way I can install both and on boot be prompted for which one to start? Is there a way to set Windows to default?
I have seen this before in CS labs in undergrad.
Also, I assume there would be no problem if I were to use Windows 32-bit along with Ubuntu 64-bit. Any advise?
The latest versions of Ubuntu include an installer called Wubi, which installs Ubuntu as a windows application (ie: it can be uninstalled from Add/Remove programs) and sets up the dual boot for you! It's great for those who want to give Linux a try without a system overhaul!
You can dual boot, but I would recommend using a Virtual Machine for what you want to do.
Look at VMWare and Virtual PC.
For more information on Virtual PC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Virtual_PC
For more information on VMWare: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VMware_Workstation
You should note that dual booting Windows and Linux can be a little risky and is a bit permanent. Running in a Virtual Machine means that you can run the Linux install in a window and not worry about it affecting your development machine at all. The software will not know the difference, so your testing is not affected.
Consider that the Virtual Machine is like a sandbox, where you can try new and different things out, without fear of consequences.
Virtual machines do run with a bit of overhead, and therefore you should not expect to be playing games or anything through them. I would say it is very much like logging into a machine through Remote Desktop (good LAN connection) as far as performance goes.
EDIT: There is also VirtualBox that you could check out. Thanks for the helpers in my comments for that one.
I, too, recommend using a virtual machine for this purpose.
I've had problems with Virtual PC on some Linux distros (Fedora Core comes to mind), but no problems with VMWare or Virtual Box.
Think very hard before installing another operating system even as dual boot. It is rarely simple, even with installers like Ubuntu's that don't require you to mess around on a command line. There is a good risk you'll spend days trying to get your usual OS back to normal especially if you're using Vista.
VMWare and Virtual PC are both good options. Do a test install on one of these and use the OS for a while before making the decision to install.
One other great thing about using a virtual machine is that you only have to worry about getting your network settings sorted on your main OS, because VMWare (etc) will borrow those.
Also, try using the operating system on Live CD or DVD to start with if at all possible. You may also find that you can run an OS from a USB stick. This is obviously good for portability - but note that you can also carry your virtual machines on a removable USB drive.
All you have to do is go to http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download and follow the directions. I downloaded Ubuntu, burned it to CD, and rebooted with the CD in the drive. I did not have to get a second hard drive or worry about it messing with my Vista Home Premium installation.
With Ubuntu (as with most distros with a Live CD install) all you need to do is pop in a disc, boot, and click through the menus. The dual boot is set up perfectly by default, you don't even have to think about it. I've done this with Ubuntu, Debian, PC Linux OS, Freespire, and Xandros on my Vista Home Premium machine and they all worked that way.
If you are paranoid, then you should back up your PC. As cheap as hard drives (USB or internal) are these days, there really is no excuse to not have a full back up of your system. It's too easy. I use Acronis True Image, but I've heard good things about Norton Ghost as well.
Regadless, you don't need Wubi or VMWare, or any virtual anything, a straight install with a dual boot set up is the default on a typical Live CD Linux install and it works even with Vista.
I've done it different ways over the years, and I'd say using a virtual machine is the one that I like best. I've tried both VMWare and VirtualBox, both free, and I like VirtualBox a little better because you can use it with the .iso straight. You don't need somebody to have created a virtual machine image for you.
Another option is to actually run Linux as an application on Windows so you get Linux running at almost full speed but also the ability to run Windows applications along side it. Check it out at http://www.colinux.org/.
I haven't had a chance to play with it yet, but an option that looks promising for me is a tool in Ubuntu to create a bootable USB drive with Ubuntu on it. It has the benefit of a live cd (no effect on your system), better performance than a live CD and the ability to persist your data from session to session. I've used Wubi before, but I can't remember why I uninstalled it.
Have a look at "cygwin".
This istalls a "linux like" windowing application within your windows
environment. It has good support for gcc and most of the standard
gnu/linux development tools.
You dont have to mess with dual boot. Its especially good for testing
windows to/from unix communictions as you can get everything up and
running in one box.
What you're looking for is called 'Dual booting'. it allows one to choose which operating system to boot at the start. It's well supported in Linux, especially Ubuntu. Just install Ubuntu and it will set up dual booting by default.
You could go either way, a dual-boot or use a VM. I think it depends on whether you'll want to use any Windows apps while developing in the Linux environment. If so, I'd go with a VM, otherwise, here's a tutorial for setting up a dual-boot computer. It has a part on installing both OSes, and a part on if you already have Windows installed.
Wubi is a great (Ubuntu specific) solution.. The only problem I've found was installing Wubi on a FAT formatted Windows partition - I had serious problems then. Also, it might run slightly slower, as there is another layer when doing disk acccess, but I can't say I've noticed.
I dual boot Vista Ultimate 32-bit and Ubuntu 8.10 beta 64-bit with no problems. The key thing, in my opinion, is to have a completely separate hard drive to install Ubuntu on. That removes a lot of the risk since you don't have to fuss around partitioning your primary HDD and makes removing Ubuntu very straightforward as well if you decide you don't want it.
Just be careful and pay attention on which drive you select when you do the install. It's easy for me to tell them apart since my Linux drive is a different size than my main Vista and data storage drives.
If you'd rather go the VM route, VMware Player works well, and I've heard good things about VirtualBox.
try a live cd install of ubuntu :D
creating a bootable flash disk is easy - unetbootin from sourceforge.net
I have dual booted Ubuntu and Xp many times with absolutely no problems. I doubt you could do the virtual thing with one OS 32 bit and the other 64. This would not be a problem with a dual boot.
I have had problems using wubi and my boot into windows7 is now unstable at best, so given the choice would favour a VM solution in hindsight. However on other machines I have run Ubuntu Live on USB (installed using pendrivelinux.com) by picking the try ubuntu option at boot and that has worked well and was quite quick to get going.