Folks, I have a node.js script running on my Windows machine that uses the dockerode npm package to talk to docker on said box and starts and kills docker containers.

However, after the containers have been killed off, docker still holds on to the memory that it blocked for those containers and this means downstream processes fail due to lack of RAM.

To counter this, I have powershell scripts to start docker desktop and to kill docker desktop.

All of this is a horrid experience.

On my Mac, I just use Colima with Portainer and couldn’t be happier.

I’ve explored some options to replace Docker Desktop and it seems Rancher Desktop is a drop-in replacement for Docker Desktop, including the docker remote API.

  1. Is this true? Is Rancher Desktop that good of a drop-in replacement?
  2. Does Rancher Desktop better manage RAM for containers that have been killed off? Or does it do the same thing as Docker Desktop and hold on to the RAM?

Are there other options which I’m not thinking of which might solve my problems? I’ve seen a few alternatives but haven’t tried them yet - moby,
containerd,
podman

I don’t actually need the Docker Desktop interface. So pure CLI docker would also just work. How are you all running pure docker on Windows boxes?

  • Dandroid@dandroid.appEnglish
    23·
    1 year ago

    I despise Docker Desktop. Before I knew anything about docker or containers, all I knew was that it was in the required software list for my work for building our software. All I knew was that if it wasn’t open, my build would fail and if it was open, my laptop would slow down to a crawl.

    Eventually I took classes on Docker for work and learned quite a bit about it. I learned that I could use docker from command line with no UI, and I wouldn’t take anywhere near the performance hit. I eventually linked my IDE docker runtime to podman running on WSL2. Now I take pretty much no noticable performance hit.

    TL;DR: you can replace Docker Desktop with WSL2 command line commands and have no UI.

    • markr@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      1 year ago

      The integration of Docker for windows with wsl2 is an abomination that breaks just about every time I update either ddw or windows. Also the fact that it is tied to my user account ( both ddw and wsl2) means that it is not a great choice for persistent services. I still use it to provide monitoring agents for Prometheus and portainer, but otherwise everything runs on Linux vms on my homelab xenserver cluster.

      It is possible to install docker without ddw. It’s documented for server versions of windows, but is basically only for running windows containers. The only use case for that is windows build agents as far as I can tell.

      Docker can be installed standalone on wsl2 and would be more reliable.

    • damnthefilibuster@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      thanks for that :)

      BTW, if I fire up a bunch of docker containers in WSL2 using podman or native docker, and then kill them, does WSL2 release the RAM it acquired to run those containers?

      • boo one@lemmy.oneEnglish
        63·
        1 year ago

        At this point i would just install a linux distro like ubuntu/debian/arch as a VM on virtualbox/vmware/hyperv and do it from there, WSL2 is supposed to be custom ubuntu minus gui running on hypervany way.

          • boo one@lemmy.oneEnglish
            11·
            1 year ago

            Meant to say a guo DE, not sure you can run plasma/jde on that, maybe with vnc/rdp? But still its with x11 server iirc.

            • dan@upvote.auEnglish
              1·
              1 year ago

              Why would you need a desktop environment though? You’re already running Windows. You can run individual Linux GUI apps, which is enough for pretty much all use cases.

        • FooBarrington@lemmy.worldEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          And as such it’s perfectly suited for what OP is trying to achieve. A custom VM will be a lot more work than using WSL2.

          • boo one@lemmy.oneEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            I wouldnt say a lot, maybe its more, but i would estimate 15min for wsl2 vs 45min for virtual box. Plus you get lot more featues than plain wsl2 and its quirks.

            • FooBarrington@lemmy.worldEnglish
              3·
              1 year ago

              WSL2 is already installed and running without any extra setup required, so all the setup time for the VM is additional time you have to spend. You’ll have to fiddle a lot longer than 45min the first time you set it up if you want parity with the WSL2 installation (bidirectional mounts, bidirectional network access, GUI applications as normal windows, integration into Terminal etc). Until everything is running you’ll probably spend half a day, since you’ll have to first look up how to best do these things for your VM environment. Even more so if you want to use Windows tools with WSL2 integration, like the whole IntelliJ suite.

              What features and quirks are you referring to?

              • boo one@lemmy.oneEnglish
                1·
                1 year ago

                Is it pre installed nowadays? I rember having to go to some store and doing stuff to get it…

                Mounts and networks should be just checkboxes, dropdowns iirc.

                Terminals are probably better on linux anyway, if we really want the stone age windows tools we can always ssh into it from windows.

                I didnt really get the gui part, linux vm can have, and run GUIs, all the intellij stuff are available for linux natively. Even then iirc they can run with any linux remotely as well, just needs ssh. If you need it to run on windows like native apps, maybe use Xserver via ssh.

                As far as quirks I read some comments in this thread about filesystem being too slow, maybe there are more.

                And now that i have typed all these, if you want it to look and feel exactly as windows withput any compromise, idk…

                • dan@upvote.auEnglish
                  2·
                  1 year ago

                  Terminals are probably better on linux anyway, if we really want the stone age windows tools

                  Wut? The Windows tools are a lot newer than the Linux ones. Windows Terminal is better than anything preinstalled on a Linux desktop IMO

                • FooBarrington@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  2·
                  1 year ago

                  Is it pre installed nowadays? I rember having to go to some store and doing stuff to get it…

                  It’s not pre-installed, but it’s checking one checkbox. Less work than deciding which VM provider to go with.

                  Mounts and networks should be just checkboxes, dropdowns iirc.

                  They should be, and yet I’ve rarely seen them work out like that. Usually I have to debug some issues and follow x StackOverflow responses which don’t work properly. Haven’t had any such issues with WSL2 yet.

                  Terminals are probably better on linux anyway, if we really want the stone age windows tools we can always ssh into it from windows.

                  … no. Windows Terminal integrates with WSL2 and allows you to open a terminal in Linux without having to set up anything inside of a good Terminal app in Windows. It’s what you’re asking for, but without any setup.

                  I didnt really get the gui part, linux vm can have, and run GUIs

                  Yes, but inside of a separate canvas. WSL2 GUI apps run as normal windows.

                  all the intellij stuff are available for linux natively

                  Okay, but I’ve tried running them in a VM and in WSL2. It is integrated the best if you run it under Windows and use the native WSL2 integration. Everything else degrades the experience.

                  Even then iirc they can run with any linux remotely as well, just needs ssh

                  Yes, and then you have to set everything up. With WSL2 in PyCharm I select “Use WSL2 Python”, it lists all the WSL2 Pythons, and I select the WSL2 Python I want. Is it really so difficult to understand that there is a difference between being able to do something and something just being available without setup?

                  If you need it to run on windows like native apps, maybe use Xserver via ssh.

                  Or I install WSL2 and skip all that.

                  As far as quirks I read some comments in this thread about filesystem being too slow, maybe there are more.

                  Yeah, you should read up on how WSL2 works. This is not an issue in any different way from VMs. WSL2 is a VM. It’s everything you’re asking for, but standardized, pre-installed and perfectly integrated. I don’t know why you’d recommend spending all those hours when it’s absolutely not necessary.

                  It’s like telling a beginner “Yeah, do Linux From Scratch, Ubuntu is way too convenient”.

        • Zeth0s@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          1 year ago

          Time to share this wisdom with IT security departments of the companies I worked for. Wsl2 is in the zero trust white papers of MS (or whatever IT security uses to take decisions). Real distros are not. Result, no trust…

          Enterprise IT… Non sense since the 70s

  • Zeth0s@lemmy.worldEnglish
    9·
    1 year ago

    Wsl2 and podman.

    Far from a nice overall experience compared to using docker on a real OS, but the best I could get on windows

  • i_am_not_a_robot@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    8·
    1 year ago

    First, it’s not possible to use “pure docker” on Windows. Docker is for running additional user mode environments under the same kernel. You can’t run Linux applications under the Windows kernel without WSL1, and WSL1’s Linux implementation does not support the features required for Docker. This is also possible in limited cases with Windows Server, but because of differences in the way Windows works you almost always end up running a second kernel.

    WSL2 can be used to run Docker, and in fact that’s how Docker Desktop works since years ago. When you start Docker Desktop it starts a WSL2 distribution under which the containers run. Running Docker from the command line only will not positively change the performance of your containers.

    Running other virtualization software, especially VirtualBox, to start a separate Linux VM and running your containers in there is going to be more complicated and give worse performance unless you disable all virtualization-based features of Windows, such as WSL2 and security isolation.

    The solution to your memory problem is most likely one of the following:

    1. Don’t disable the pagefile. Windows uses a weird memory model where all virtual memory must be backed by physical memory. Certain software will allocate virtual memory without using it, and Windows will require that the sum of the physical memory size and the page file size be adequate to use all of that virtual memory. Disabling the pagefile or limiting it to small sizes because you “have enough RAM” will cause out of memory errors while you still have plenty of RAM available.
    2. Reduce the amount of memory that Docker is allowed to use to a level that your Windows software can tolerate. You may need to switch Docker Desktop to Hyper-V mode for this option to be available, which isn’t an option if you’re on Windows Home, and this may reduce compatibility.
    3. After stopping your containers, run echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory at a WSL2 prompt or wsl -u root -- bash -c 'echo 1 > /proc/sys/vm/compact_memory' from a Windows prompt. See Memory Reclaim in the Windows Subsystem for Linux 2 for details about what this does.
  • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.worldEnglish
    4·
    1 year ago

    When I had Windows I ran WSL2 + standard Linux docker, worked flawlessly. If you have all your files in the WSL volume, it’s also really fast compared to Docker Desktop on Windows or Mac. I found it almost as fast as a native Linux version.