• 0 Posts
  • 12 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 13th, 2023

help-circle

  • Yeah ultimately every container has it’s own veth interface, so you can do shaping using tc on those.

    Edit: I had a look at docker-tc. It does what you want, BUT. Unless your use case is complex, I would really think twice about running a tool written in bash which has access to the docker socket (I.e. trivial node escape) and runs with NET_ADMIN capability.

    That’s a lot of power to do something you can also do with a few lines of code executed after you start the container. Again, provided that your use case is not complex.


  • Cgroups have the ability to limit TCP and total network bandwidth. I don’t know from the top of my mind whether this can be configured at runtime (I.e. via docker run), but you can specifcy at runtime the cgroup parent to use. This means you can pre-create the cgroup, set the limits and start the container with that parent cgroup.

    You can also run some hook script after launch that adds the PID to a cgroup every time the container is launched, or possibly use tc.

    I am not aware of the ability to only limit uplink bandwidth, but I have not researched this.





  • sudneo@lemmy.worldtoSelfhosted@lemmy.worldDocker or podman?
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    I would say Docker. There is no substantial benefit in running podman, while docker is a widely adopted tool (which means more tooling in the ecosystem, easier to find answers to questions etc.). The difference is not huge tbh, and some time ago the biggest advantage for podman was being able to run rootless, while docker was stuck with a root daemon. This is not the case anymore (docker can run rootless), so I would say unless you have some specific argument to use podman, stick with docker.





  • Our starting point for design is longevity, which means making our devices more repairable, a very different approach to the electronics industry standard. To support maximum longevity and because of the IP rating, Fairphone 4 does not feature a headphone jack. In the end, it comes down to how we make a product that lasts for at least five years. We needed to eliminate as many vulnerabilities as possible, and the headphone jack is subject to dust and water ingress over time.

    Again, you might disagree, you might know better, I don’t know. But this is their motivation when it comes to longevity and hence sustainability. To me, it seems a reasonable idea: if the jack helps reducing the consumption of batteries in headphones but decreases the lifespan of the phones, it seems a bad tradeoff.