Perhaps a dumb question but I'm curious why people don't use a VPS or a cloud linux machine more for Docker/K8s development instead of running Docker locally on a Mac.
In my experience Docker Desktop has been such a resource hog, and Apple's hypervisor implementation pretty poor. I much prefer to have all that heavy lifting isolated away from my development machine to keep it responsive and cool.
If you have multiple developers working on the same product, you want each developer to have their own environment. In my experience, for cost, convenience, and productivity its made most sense to do this with local Docker. It also eliminates a lot of connectivity issues with running on a remote machine.
> In my experience Docker Desktop has been such a resource hog
Not sure if this is related to the specific project or what, but I haven't had tons of trouble with docker being a big hog.
That said, they are significantly changing the way Docker on M-Series CPUs works, working directly with Apple's Virtualization Framework which I believe improves performance.
Some root causes have been addressed. If they are significantly changing the architecture with the Apple Silicon rollout, I'm very much looking forward to see if that improves things!
Docker for Mac is a really bad resource hog for devs at my company. It's a common refrain that comes up again and again.
We build a SaaS web app with a MERN stack deployed to AWS. Local development usually involves running about 12 containers.
Personally, I got fed up and installed Ubuntu 20.04 in Parallels and have been running the Docker containers there for several months. What a night and day difference... the entire VM sits at about 13% CPU when idling, whereas Docker for Mac would whine my fans at around 150% CPU continuously when idling, and spike up to 300+% when clicking around the app.
I wasn't trying to argue the point about Docker being a resource hog! I've always run Docker on computers with lots of RAM or with fairly simple images (or both sometimes) so it's likely I've just dodged that bullet.
Back in the old days, each of those developers would just use telnet and X Window sessions on the same UNIX box, which the cloud is nothing else than the same stack in new clothing.
The main resource issue is because Docker runs in a VM, it can't share memory with the OS. So it's using the configured amount of memory (2GB by default) whether you're running busybox or an entire Kubernetes cluster.
I think the Virtualization Framework mitigates that to some extent. The way Docker was required to run on x86 it needed a Linux VM which I believe the Docker images ran atop. Under the new model, I think they run on bare metal and share memory.
Regardless, for me the cost of adding enough RAM to support Docker is less than the headache and expense of spinning up Docker images in the cloud.
M1 Docker still needs a Linux VM, Virtualization Framework is just a different way of doing that. I'm not aware of any VM that can share memory with the host, but maybe Apple has some black magic up their sleeve.
Yeah, fundamentally Docker is Linux on Linux. If you are running Linux on MacOS, it's not Docker, it's a VM. So Docker installs are Linux Docker Image -> Linux VM -> MacOS Virtualization Framework.
For that reason alone, I suspect Linux will always be the best host system for Docker images.
Seems like Apple's Virtualization Framework supports some sort of memory ballooning mechanism (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/virtualization/mem...), which could hopefully enables in the near future dynamic memory support like Docker Desktop on WSL 2 is able to do (if it's not already the case, I haven't tried the M1 preview).
If I'm writing code on a shitty laptop keyboard instead of a proper mechanical one, it's because I am, or intend to often be, outside an office, quite possibly travelling. This also usually means that I will not have a reliable internet connection.
It can get surprisingly expensive when left on 24/7. If someone can come up with a remote (dare I say, serverless?) development environment that could seamlessly suspend/resume or share resources, then it would be a lot more compelling to me.
Network volitilty and debugging were the reasons I moved back to a mostly local dev setup.
I also run linux though so resources aren't much of an issue for me. I'm actively considering setting up remote environments for one of my teams that is all mac users working in a containerful dev environment.
Without kubernetes, Docker Desktop is fine. Been running it for years on my current and previous mac book pro (the 2012 model). Docker performance has never really been an issue for me. The bundled kubernetes seems to burn a lot of CPU though; so I keep that disabled.
I work with other people in teams and I don't get to tune every project I deal with to be just right for my tastes and hardware. So being able to run their stuff as is with emulation is preferable to me having to customize everything before I get to run it.
Clarifying a bit - I can't start up the Docker Desktop Kubernetes - If I take a look at the image downloaded (docker/desktop-kubernetes) it only shows tags for amd64.
When I try to spin up kubernetes, the UI just shows 'starting...' while the logs show the image won't work with this architecture.
Probably because it’s not very convenient or easy to setup. I have a 2013 i7 MacBook Pro and I don’t have that much trouble running Docker with 16GB of RAM.
I’m building a startup that aims to help with this - but as others have mentioned - who wants to pay for two computers?
One solution is re-purposing an old PC into a home-server - once that’s setup, tools like Skaffold start to shine - local network speed, a cool laptop, containerized development, and a platform for home-hosting!
Anyways I’m very excited about this future - much more than paying AWS for another machine!
> I don't want to be _too_ pedantic but the M1 macbooks are significantly cheaper than their Intel counterparts.
The M1 MBP is about 15% cheaper, which I guess might be significant to some, but isn’t a huge selling point to me like you’re making it out to be. GP was talking about a 15/16” MBP at $3k, not the 13”.
Developers for the most part have or can look forward enough to enough income to make a tool like a mac relatively inexpensive. My biggest problem with buying them has been how absurdly bad the hardware has been for years other than the trackpad. The screensize/weight ratio, the screensize/body size ratio, the keyboards, and the performance were all well behind the competition. MacOS only running natively on bad hardware was a great reason not to use it, the fact they charged a $500+ premium on their software was really just another nail in the coffin. You had to need or fucking love MacOS to justify buying a mac.
How things change in a year or two. Pretty much only the weight/size relative to the screen size remains substandard and I expect them to improve on those fronts.
- overall dimensions 14.06 x 9.27 x 0.66in or about 86in^3
Apple 16” MBP: via Apple.com
- 16” screen
- 4.3lbs
- overall dimensions 14.09in x 9.68in x 0.64in or about 87.3in^3
—-
So weight/screensize ratio:
Dell = 0.27lb/in vs Apple = 0.27lb/in
Screensize/bodysize ratio (higher is better):
Dell = 92.7% coverage vs Apple = 93.6% coverage
So just using your first two arbitrary criteria, seems Apple’s 16” laptop is ahead of or tied with, but not “well behind”, this competitor.
I’m sure you can pull out some edge case laptop that beats it, but as the XPS is arguably the most popular non-Apple laptop among devs, I feel it’s fair to say the Apple laptop is definitively not “well behind the competition”, at least using your criteria.
For a laptop that’s <3oz heavier and only 1.3in^3 larger dimensions, you get a screen almost a half inch bigger, almost 20% larger battery, the worlds best trackpad, 8 core i9 vs a 6 core i7 processor, option to get 64gb ram rather than being limited to only 32gb, etc etc.
The 16" slipped my mind, that varient to me was the first "good" laptop apple released in years but they were pushing a dated 15" model not so long ago. This laptop had quite a bit of overheating issues to the point you can't even drive all the monitors it says it supports on the spec sheet off the iGPU anywhere close to comfortably.
The 13" models which I'm more interested in are more dated and more behind in terms of weight although the performance makes up for that. What truly stunned me a few years back was comparing a 13" MBA to a T480s and seeing Macs just get tied or crushed in pretty much any area that wasn't related to speaker quality or the trackpad. This laptop had an extra inch of screen space and an extra 2 cores and better input overall and higher memory support and way more ports and about the same battery life and the same weight and all this for substantially less money especially if you bought memory aftermarket. It was nothing short of a humiliation - and this wasn't even Lenovo's top product - Apple wasn't even competing with second rate products. I seriously wondered how Apple had fallen so far from the heyday of the MBPr and if it was just going to let the MacBooks decay into irrelevance.
I also would compare Apple to the X1 line, not the cheaper XPS line with a 32gb memory limit just because it's popular. I could compare Apple to Inspiron which is even more popular and Apple would be even further ahead. Hopefully Dell can make some good laptops one day.
> This laptop had quite a bit of overheating issues to the point you can't even drive all the monitors it says it supports on the spec sheet off the iGPU anywhere close to comfortably.
Also, which laptop is this claim in reference to?
Personal experiences:
13” M1 MBP - one LG 5K display, zero heat or fan speed issues.
16” MBP - I daily drive two LG 5K monitors with no increased heat or fan speed. Prior to picking up the additional LG 5K, I used one LG 5K and two 27” Apple Thunderbolt displays.
15” MBP, with 4 TB3 ports: LG 5K and two 27” Apple TB displays all working without higher heat than w/o them connected
13” MBP, with 4 TB3 ports: same triple monitor setup, same no heat / fan speed issues.
15” rMBP (2015): used two 27” Apple Thunderbolt displays + two 34” ultrawide LG displays, no heat issues or fan issues
The only time I’ve ever seen my laptop stressed by connected monitors is when I did an experiment and connected NINE external displays (ten total screens, as laptop screen was still on) as a test to a 16” MBP to see if it could do it. If I’d had more TB monitors to test with, I think I could’ve done higher count.
Setup in that test:
TB3 port back left: LG 5K display
TB3 port front left: two 27” Apple Thunderbolt monitors daisy chained and using TB3->TB2 adapter
TB3 port back right: eGPU w/ AMD Radeon 580 card connected to two 34” LG ultrawides and two 27” Apple Cinema Display monitors (the older non-TB models)
TB3 port front right: same setup as left, two 27” Apple TB displays
Even then, it definitely wasn’t “overheating”, but processors did idle much higher and fans stayed on during idle (but not at high speed).
I was looking for a laptop capable of running 3x4k displays and there is currently a 186 page thread on macrumours about the 16" being too hot with external displays.
I can't remember where I saw the benchmarks but I saw a HUGE difference in performance for the CPU depending on if you were running an eGPU or not simply because you're not stressing the internal GPU. Closing the lid reportedly also makes a huge difference. We may be using different definitions of "overheating" but generally what I saw was a laptop which advertised it could handle FOUR 4k displays but it could only do that while being loud and slow. Looking at updated reviews it seems like it's only certain configurations that lead to this problem. Nevertheless I saw reviews, they looked bad, and I held onto my money, and bought a solution with better cooling.
I have strong hopes the m1x will just support a ton of displays out of the box and just work in a compact package. If they released a 14" that could support more than 2 displays I'd freaking faint and wake up weeping with joy that my dream computer had arrived.
So definitely not way ahead either, actually behind the first two on one of your criteria.
Look, it’s obvious you have a bias against Apple, likely even a justified one. I have reasons I hate them too. But can we please not post baseless claims like you seem to be doing? I personally feel folks doing that are contributing to the huge backwards slide of content quality on the internet. If you want to say you prefer non-Apple laptops, that’s entirely fine, just don’t try to justify your decision with arbitrary ratios without actually running the numbers and seeing if Apple really is “far behind the competition” on those arbitrary criteria.
Bezels are rather bad on the T series back then but weight was fantastic, xps13 was slightly better in terms of bezels and weight. The T-series having the nipple also helped you use it in tighter spaces closer to your body without sticking your elbows out which helps in tight seated spaces (which is the big reason I care about body size vs screen size), but those tall bezels were dreadful. Still I was just stunned by Apples seeming lack of competitiveness in the 13-14" space, and their 15" laptops weren't good until the 16" came out which was a fine laptop compared to the competition but the thermals really disappointed me and it felt like some of the hardware they put in it went to waste. The 16" was the first laptop since 2015 I would honestly say was arguably the best on the market of that type, before that the laptops were just crap.
>Look, it’s obvious you have a bias against Apple
I have a bias against bad products like the 2016-2019 era macbooks which were dreadful. When Apple was making good laptops before then, I was a fan. After they started making good laptops again, I was a fan. When Apple was in the dark ages, I went to the store and gave their laptops an honest shot but I just couldn't bring myself to buy such garbage even though I was a fan of MacOS. Do I have to believe Apple has made the best laptops from a hardware perspective every single year to not be bias against them with no regard to what their competition is doing? There is not a single product in their lineup I do not consider arguably the best on the market these days, I've been in rooms where I was on of two mac users in a room of 30, my god I'm SO biased against Apple because I hate heavy slow computers with defective keyboards and dubious pricing.
> I have a bias against bad products like the 2016-2019 era macbooks which were dreadful.
Your biased opinion. My biased opinion? I can’t stand the pre-2016 MBPs anymore, and the keyboard is a major reason. Yes, I love the 2016 and later keyboards (newest ones being the best, but I never had issues with the 2016-2018 ones that others reported).
> Do I have to believe Apple has made the best laptops from a hardware perspective every single year to not be bias against them with no regard to what their competition is doing?
Nobody has said or implied that but you, so?
> There is not a single product in their lineup I do not consider arguably the best on the market these days
I've got a stacked 64Gb Dell XPS 5550 and an ass end M1 MacBook Air. I'd rather use the Air any day.
But I'd rather just use my desktop M1 Mini than both. It has a 27" screen and a proper keyboard (Durgod K320) attached to it. All my shit is in AWS now.
> I've got a stacked 64Gb Dell XPS 5550 and an ass end M1 MacBook Air. I'd rather use the Air any day.
I’ve got a 12 core 3.3ghz Xeon Mac Pro w/ 256gb RAM and a max spec 13” M1 MacBook Pro. Like you, I’d rather use the M1 unless the workload really needs the extra CPU cores/memory/Higher end GPU. Single thread, the M1 is faster. Even up to 8 cores, the M1 keeps pace with the much higher TDP CPUs.
Also, re: 64gb being an option on the X5550, it doesn’t surprise me doing a search for the spec sheet for a 15” Dell XPS didn’t include information that there was a X5500 and a higher spec X5550. Why make it easily discoverable for customers like Apple does?
We didn't know Dell did them either until we couldn't get a PO signed off for a more expensive one and ended up talking to a sales guy at Dell. So yep completely agree on the discoverability thing.
The M1 MacBook Pros are cheaper, because they replaced the cheapest Intel MacBook Pros in the lineup. Before M1, $1299 was the price of a MBP with 1.4GHz Quad-Core Processor with Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz / 256GB Storage / Touch Bar and Touch ID: http://web.archive.org/web/20201105002246/https://www.apple....
make change -> compile -> build image -> deploy to k8s
then running docker/k8s remotely would be great but i need great upload bandwidth to be pushing fresh images everytime I make a change. In theory docker layers/caching should fix this but the reality is that you don't add individual files to an image, you had the compiled artifact/bundle/whatevs and if any file changes its going to upload it again, made worse by a change that effects many components/images/k8s pods. If you can solve the upload bandwidth problem (local servers? giant pipe?) then becomes more possible.
In my experience Docker Desktop has been such a resource hog, and Apple's hypervisor implementation pretty poor. I much prefer to have all that heavy lifting isolated away from my development machine to keep it responsive and cool.