Improve Docker Desktop Performance with Synchronized Filesystem Caches

Hacker News

Hey HN, I wanted to share a Docker Desktop extension that uses Mutagen (the open-source[0] file sync tool for developers) to improve bind mount performance in Docker Desktop. It allows you to create synchronized filesystem caches inside the Docker Desktop VM that can automatically replace bind mounts. This gives you ext4 filesystem performance inside the Docker Desktop VM, with low-latency synchronization to-and-from the host filesystem. Docker themselves actually shipped this functionality in Docker Desktop back in 2020, but they decided to pivot back to virtual filesystems with gRPC FUSE and Virtiofs. While these work fairly well, there are still substantial gains to be had for workflows that are readdir(), stat(), read(), and write()-heavy. This includes things like package installs (e.g. npm and Composer), dynamic language runtimes (e.g. PHP or Node.js), and compiling code. This new implementation is significantly more performant[1], offers a more detailed UI, and gives you the option of setting the user and group IDs for files sync'd into the VM. You can even create multiple caches of the same files with different UIDs/GIDs, allowing containers with different UIDs/GIDs to access the same files without permissions conflicts. This extension is closed-source and requires a subscription for some functionality, but that money helps to support the corresponding open-source project. I'd be keen to hear your feedback. There are a few minor limitations (mostly SDK limitations), but nothing too significant. The next step is probably going to be adding support for remote Docker engines, but I'd be interested to know if there are other pressing features that people would like to see. Disclaimer: I am a Docker Captain, though this tool is not developed, sponsored, or endorsed by Docker, Inc. --- [0]: https://github.com/mutagen-io/mutagen [1]: The Docker Desktop EULA prevents me from publishing benchmarks, but the performance difference will be the same as the difference between gRPC FUSE or Virtiofs and a "native" ext4 volume inside the VM. This will differ between hardware and virtualization frameworks. The best option is testing your own workflow.

Visit product View on Hacker NewsDec 7, 2022

Share card

Actual performance

5points

Did not reach leaderboard

Launch Intel predictions

Analyze your own launch →

Product HuntOn track for Day 1 leaderboard · Strong signals: user, dock, new · Missing: mac, agents, macos

92%92% predicted probability of success on Product Hunt, based on ML models trained on real launch data.

best fitHighest predicted score across all platforms for this description.

Indie HackersFits the IH revenue-focused audience · Missing: supports, reddit linkedin, podcasting

79%79% predicted probability of success on Indie Hackers, based on ML models trained on real launch data.

Hacker NewsStrong engagement from HN community · Strong signals: filesystem, ide, io · Missing: https docs, excited, just released

63%63% predicted probability of success on Hacker News, based on ML models trained on real launch data.

nativeThis product was originally launched on this platform.

AppSumoMay struggle as an AppSumo deal · Strong signals: host · Missing: plus, platform, intuitive

46%46% predicted probability of success on AppSumo, based on ML models trained on real launch data.

TrustMRRLess likely to generate early MRR · Missing: mobile apps, ios, personal

33%33% predicted probability of success on TrustMRR, based on ML models trained on real launch data.

Acquire.comPre-revenue stage for this audience · Strong signals: subscription · Missing: arr, mrr, revenue

15%15% predicted probability of success on Acquire.com, based on ML models trained on real launch data.

BetaListMay not resonate with beta-testers · Missing: web3, chat, crypto

0%0% predicted probability of success on BetaList, based on ML models trained on real launch data.

Incorrect prediction on native model

Similar products

Django on Docker45%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

Django on Docker

Hacker News3

Docker NGINX container68%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

Docker NGINX container

Hacker News1

Apache Beam with Docker42%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

Apache Beam with Docker

Hacker News2

Apache Beam with Docker42%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

Apache Beam with Docker

Hacker News1

Softcover gem Docker container38%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

Softcover gem Docker container

Hacker News1

Docker: Taming the Beast (Part I)48%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

Docker: Taming the Beast (Part I)

Hacker News4

Rubymine docker48%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

Rubymine docker

Hacker News1

Docker Refcard48%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

Docker Refcard

Hacker News4

Mine for Zcash anywhere with Docker48%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

Mine for Zcash anywhere with Docker

Hacker News8

Docker Conductor48%Launch Intel prediction score: how likely this product is to succeed on its source platform, based on its name, tagline, and description.

Docker Conductor

Hacker News1

Browse all products Analyze your launch