this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2026
386 points (97.3% liked)

Technology

84143 readers
2269 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Wispy2891@lemmy.world 16 points 18 hours ago (6 children)

Not a sysadmin but just an hobbyist: is it ok to have such a large install bare metal and not containerized?

For example the issue of MySQL 5 being unavailable would be a non-issue with a container

[–] Kissaki@feddit.org 2 points 48 minutes ago

Totally fine. Containerization comes at a cost too. It's a matter of system design, knowing your risks and complexities, and handling them accordingly.

With such a size, before containerization I'm wondering if these services are not independent enough to split them onto multiple servers.

Having everything together reduce system complexities in some ways, but not in other ways.

[–] raspberriesareyummy@lemmy.world 5 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

For example the issue of MySQL 5 being unavailable would be a non-issue with a container

So people careless enough to "just container it" for old, possibly security-compromised software - you call that a "non-issue"? How about upgrading and configuring for compatibility?

[–] Wispy2891@lemmy.world 2 points 6 hours ago

They're the ones running a 10 years old database on a 11 years old os in a public facing server "because it just works", not me

If it was a container, they could just tag a new version when the database went EOL 5 years ago, without being locked on what the package manager was offering

Because they used MySQL 5 on CentOS 7 from the package manager and couldn't easily upgrade

[–] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 6 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago)

Yes it’s ok, in general. It’s not the most modern or efficient way of managing infrastructure but it’s worked for decades now. It all depends on what you’re hosting, for who, and for how many people.

If you’re hosting internal company infrastructure for a relatively static number of users in a single of set few regions to deliver to, bare metal monolithic stuff is absolutely fine. It’s when you’re an app or service company and your infrastructure is for the back end for a public service that needs to be able to scale dynamically, and you’re worried about high 24/7 uptime, and latency to end users is a global issue that things like microservice architecture, containerization, and iac starts becoming important.

The whole containerization crazy is important for microservices architecture where you split your app into different pieces. This lets you scale different parts of you app as needed, it prevents your entire app from failing just because one part of it failed, it allows for lifecycle management like blue/green deployments with no downtime, allows developers to work on different parts of the app and update at a faster cadence than one big release for the entire thing every time you update one small part of it, things like that.

[–] recursivethinking@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

you can just set up containers on your bare metal server. in fact if you're going to install insecure services you definitely want to containerize them, though tbh you need to run really far away from whatever it is you're doing that requires sql5, or at least don't let it be reachable on the internet, that should be network-isolated, which really limits its utility.

[–] Passerby6497@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

in fact if you're going to install insecure services you definitely want to containerize them,

While this is true, if you're running a platform that is root by default (looking at you, docker), you're not shielding yourself as much as you might think you are.

If you're running an insecure app as root, you better hope they don't also have an exploit to get out of the container after the app is popped, otherwise you're fucked.

[–] inzen@lemmy.world 4 points 17 hours ago

Don't quote me, but as far as I know containers can't fix the issue if the host kernel is too old.

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 0 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

Wha?

You do realize there are plenty of bare metal infrastructure deployments out in the world, yeah? Being in a container solves no problems in this scenario at all.

[–] rangber@lemmy.zip 5 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago)

They may not. Hence hobbyist. Relax.