Johnathan,
Might I ask why you might be opposed to containerization on VMs?
From my understanding, while both technologies provide isolation, they’re really solving different problems. VMs give you a hard boundary and a clean unit for patching and lifecycle management, while containers
are mainly about packaging the application and its dependencies, so it runs the same everywhere. In my world that split has been useful: the OS team can maintain and secure the underlying VM baseline whatever that might be without breaking the applications,
and dev teams can ship what they need without the usual “it works on my machine” friction.
Thanks,
Steve Gilmore
From: Jonathan Hutchins <hutchins@tarcanfel.org>
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2026 5:22 PM
To: KCLUG mailing list <kclug@kclug.org>
Subject: Re: Site requirements and Move
On 02/21/2026 4: 42 PM CST Chris
Bier <chris. bier@ cymor. com>
wrote: This sounds pretty good to me, but I don't like the idea of containers on a VM. One or the other. I think that traffic management (round robin) is a bit ambitious. We really
On 02/21/2026 4:42 PM CST Chris Bier <chris.bier@cymor.com> wrote:
This sounds pretty good to me, but I don't like the idea of containers on a VM. One or the other.
I think that traffic management (round robin) is a bit ambitious. We really don't need it for a site with a few dozen users at best. It gives us fallback if a node goes down, but it also increases maintenance
and points-of-failure. I have seen distributed/fallback systems fail more often than they work.
If some kind of Linux bomb drops and suddenly end users are overflowing the system we can easily expand.
--
Jonathan