Sign in to view. Start the VM inside VirtualBox, and then shut it down. It should now be listed via "VBoxManage list vms". This is usually due to configuration changing after already booting the machine. If so, run: So report this upstream? Maybe a command option like 'Resurrect VMs"? Vagrant asks VirtualBox: "is ID valid? This happened to me just now with Vagrant 2. Configure Vagrant as normal, do stuff there Modified the Vagrantfile a bit - I added the below: config.
Just the synced folders do not exist. If a machine is not created, only the default provider will be shown. So if a provider is not listed, then the machine is not created for that environment. Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account? Sign in to comment. You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session. You signed out in another tab or window. Think about the VM actually interpreting the link and resolving the path against its own filesystem. Just doesn't make sense. If you want that, share the directory on the host and mount it in your VM so it's your host resolving the link. My experience with Vagrant is that it's amazing, but I've only used it for a web application with Github and Jenkins for CI.
Dev team doesn't have to spend a second thinking outside the git repo. A couple more for the list: Shared folders get setup before provision scripts are run For 14 - just use a hyperv as your provider with Vagrant. You'll probably get better synced folder performance as a bonus. I like All my vagrant boxes are dual NIC eth0 is the standard I had an infuriating issue where my boxes would startup and then randomly it seemed at the time stop responding to network requests.
Initially I thought they were hanging for some reason and would tear them down and re-init them. The trick is to kill the running dhclient during provisioning and restart it with switches that force it to only maintain leases for eth0: machine. Sure, running Debian means if you want the latest and greatest you might have to build it yourself.
But it's also much less likely to hose you for stupid reasons. I'm glad to see that the state of play has improved so much in the intervening years!
I'm also a Debian fanboy been my preferred distro since "potatoe" days but I had to switch to Ubuntu for the first time for this current project. It's not all bad but I'll return to the warm embrace of Debian for my next project. Oh yeah, two other handy networking related commands I use are: vb. So many problems with Windows developers because Vagrant will not work as expected there : Anybody know any best practices what to do with Windows developers? I'm thinking of going to docker I always just run a Linux VM and do most things there, with host directories cross-mounted via Cygwin sshd and sshfs faster, more reliable, and better permissions mapping in my experience than Virtualbox shared folders and anything that needs to take advantage of filesystem capabilities not supported in NTFS, such as the symlinks mentioned in a sibling comment, done outside a mounted directory.
This lets me get work done, but it's a suboptimal experience to say the least, and relies heavily on my prior systems administration experience to stay working when it goes weird. Absent such experience among your developers or at least someone you can put in support of them, about the best I can recommend is to struggle through with Vagrant and your local handful of best practices - at least with Vagrant your dev environments are reproducible, so that when things go too cattywampus you can just burn down the VM and pop a fresh one out of the oven and get back to work.
If your Vagrant boxes aren't reproducible, that's the first thing you want to fix. Docker for Windows is not going to be an improvement here; on the one hand, it's newer and less battle-hardened, and on the other, it has to run in a VM anyway. Either Hyper-V or VirtualBox, each of which has its own idiosyncrasies, and only one of which can be used at a time - enable Hyper-V, VirtualBox doesn't work any more.
Docker for Windows, like Docker for Mac, comes with some plumbing that tries to smooth over the impedance mismatch between platforms, but it's lossy and brings its own headaches, so you're just adding more complexity to the dev env for no real gain - you can just run Docker in your Vagrant boxes, if you actually need Docker, and have one fewer headache that way. Similar approach here. I usually have a "management" vagrant box that exposes my gitrepo back to the Windows host with samba. I then have two or three other vagrant machines that can access the same gitrepo via an NFS mount to the "management" machine.
The advantage with this approach is file permissions don't get messed up and symlinks work i. The only major disadvantage is if your repo has symlinks you can't create new symlinks on the windows host and you can't use Git for Windows and, by extension, the git addon for VSCode. This is because Samba "fakes" symlinks on windows and doesn't truly support them although it might be able to do so in the future. I believe that mainstream docker development is in a much better place nowadays on windows, so it's worth a shot That said, anecdotally: repeatedly for the last 3ish years I've been running into docker-on-windows issues that have developed into complete showstoppers during development.
This has repeateded across multiple projects and employers. I have an arms-length list of issues that are purely installation related, not even touching my code. I currently am using two dev machines with that had their Hyper-V installations irreparably broken because they were not US-EN windows, rendering them useless for most virtualization.
I am optimistic that windows will come around. I am hopeful their posix layer will work out, and their local bash shell will become nice, and the ecosystem will work. I have some faith that next-gen windows will handle this much better From experience, though, and for my own projects and developers in if you want to do container development on windows, get a mac. WSL along with Docker for Windows works amazingly well.
It's what I use as my primary development environment for every day web development.
VmWare player is free and has been working perfectly for a decade. VirtualBox never caught up with VmWare when it comes to supported features and stability. Vagrant is a wrapper around virtualbox so it suffers from the same issues. Docker on Windows is totally experimental. They ported to Windows for the PR and next round of funding. Don't expect anything to work. I have been using Docker in Windows 10, and it works. It did install Virtualbox. Agreed, symlinks and file permissions always seem to bite the people working on Windows.
Same basic idea but plain ruby constants no need for yaml parsing. I was a long-time Vagrant user but recently switched almost completely to Docker Compose. What features does Docker miss that make people keep using Vagrant? To give a counter-point to all the praise here, Docker for Mac has been one of the most frustrating pieces of software I've had to use for work.
It has improved significantly over the first time I used it almost immediately after public beta , but I still occasionally run into various bugs, such as inotify events ceasing to work arbitrarily. On top of that, last I checked, Docker for Windows is still missing some features like inotify events, and requires you to enable Hyper-V, which of course removes your ability to have other VMs running simultaneously.
The other side of it is that Vagrant is just easier. Docker requires everything to fit into a "one container per service, one process per container" model, which is a really good idea in production, but makes setting up background services such as the Flow server in development way harder than it needs to be. I'm not a devops person, so the extra overhead of trying to figure this all out is significant. As someone who really doesn't care how these things work under the hood, Vagrant has been a significantly smaller source of friction for me.
No, it does not. I use Docker as vagrant replacement too, and use a self-written bash script as "init script" that: 1 launches all services required e. Also, the documentation on how to set up a production server, especially the required OS packages, is embedded right in the Dockerfile or, as I put the setup script in its own file, in this one.
Build time for an image with identical functionality is approximately equal to what it was with Vagrant. RussianCow on Oct 28, I used the wrong wording: I should have said that Docker encourages one process per container, not that it requires it. It's possible to do most of the same things with Docker as you can do with a VM, including implementing a full-blown init system, it's just a matter of effort.
Having said that, what you did is definitely non-trivial at least it would be for me , and you've basically re-implemented all of the stuff Vagrant gives you for free, for a pretty marginal benefit IMO. Unfortunately it's corp stuff and needs a bit of cleanup.
But I'll try to get it open sourced - can you send me a reminder email? My email's in my profile. I'm far more familiar with Vagrant than Docker, so there may be Docker solutions for these problems. But I use Vagrant to: - Test my software on a "fresh" Linux installation, to ensure it doesn't have any hidden dependencies - Test my software with different filesystem layouts and soon different filesystems, without having to pollute my own filesystem with hundreds of test files - Automatically install a set of global commands in the VM such as "b" to do a complete build and display help text as soon as a user runs "vagrant ssh", so a new developer can quickly get up to speed It's been pretty good!
OK, Host: Windows 7 Ultimate x64 Guest: Ubuntu Twenty mintues ago, I had 4 different VMs managed by Vagrant listed in VirtualBox. Vagrant has lost it's association with the already made vm and I need to re-associate it somehow. Changing the id files causes 'vagrant status' to report that the machine is yet to be created. For Vagrant x there should be a file in ".vagrant\machines\default\virtualbox\id.
It seems like the author was using Vagrant to set up their base Docker machine. So yes, the author could have run everything on Docker locally, but this was to setup those Docker clusters Kubernetes and OpenShift. Running a small cluster on my developer box with 32GB of ram was cheap. Vagrant gives you a full VM with a traditional init system. Docker is usually used without an init or a very dumb init , so you'll have different containers for each service.
It's a very different way of working, and I'd argue vagrant's is simpler and easier to understand, but less scalable. Yeah I understand the difference between the two but I was wondering why people prefer Vagrant over Docker for development environments. For me, because docker doesn't do jack to help with developing in the kernel.
I think this is one of the edge cases where vagrant is useful over docker. Most ppl here don't do kernel dev though. At my company we need to have virtual machines as close as possible software wise to our production environment, including the kernel version.
Because we want a full VM, to very closely mimic production. I use both Vagrant and docker for local Dev work. I've found that we have far less problems with the vagrant box we link a bunch of projects into a single box to save RAM than the docker compose setup. Hopefully we can find that sweet spot between working nicely and resource preservation that we want. Me too. I use docker4mac now. Never had to use vagrant again. I know docker gets a lot of hate here but docker4mac is one one the best pieces of software i've used in a my 10 yr career.
Same here, been using docker-compose for development and testing and it's been great. Spinning up 4 servers with docker uses much less space and memory than 4 vagrants.
It's also much quicker to provision and get started. Willson50 on Oct 27, Snapshots are pretty useful, I miss those. I'm not super familiar with Vagrant or docker. But I've used vagrant before to do linux development on a windows machine. AFAIK that's not even related to anything docker claims to be able to do. Vagrant's private network is really cool as well.
I use it to test ansible provisioning scripts for server infrastructure. I'd advise caution with the use of landrush, at my company it was very quick to get up and running using it, but we encountered several problems with it over time. We have several vagrant boxes coming up and down at various times on each developer's machine and it would tend to get out of sync in various cases, hold on to records for machines that no longer existed and macOS DNS cache also played a role.