Hello.
Is it True that in the future Hypervisors killed by Containers? Can I mean Hypervisors dead for all?

Any idea?

Thank you.

It's a bit murky.

Containers don't replace "hypervisors". They MAY replace "virtual guests". You still need a primary OS On which to put your containers.

The hypervisor is the virtualization platform server (e.g. a VMWare ESX system, a KVM system or a MS Hyper-V system) on which you put your "virtual guest" systems.

At this point far more people are using "virtualization" (Hypervisors and guests) than Containers though there is a lot of buzz about Containers now. You might want to look at CoreOS and RedHat Atomic and Docker for more discussion about what Containers are.

1 members found this post helpful.

two different technologies, both have a niche. nobody is killing anybody.

Thus they are two different technologies and Containers based on hypervisors.
Which container have better future? Docker, Linux Container, RedHat Atomic or...

as far as I know Docker is based on Linux Container. Containers are "simple" constructs and hypervisors offer more, but also need more resources. So those are just different levels of virtualization.

RedHat Atomic will be using Docker containers.

Can containers affect VM jobs in the future? For example, Request for Xen experts lost.

Can they? Yes.

Will they? Time will tell.

I can say that my organization has moved into containers on CoreOS for one major project. Also most of the recent RedHat meetups I've been at have focused RedHat atomic and the speakers there generally suggest that containerization will take the place of virtualization.

However, just because a thing is possible doesn't mean everybody embraces it. At this point I'd suggest most shops are doing some form of virtualization but that doesn't mean they've all abandoned physical systems completely. Factors keeping people on physical include performance and license costs. Similarly many folks these days are moving away from their own virtualization to cloud based systems but here again not everyone has fully embraced the cloud and some things don't make as much sense in public clouds owing to things like the cost of online storage and other add-on costs. In that light containers make sense for some projects but since it is still an emerging technology I don't think you'll see folks abandoning virtualization any time soon.

Containers based on hypervisors and I guess their security problems are more than hypervisors, But if hypervisors dead how Containers live? They are based on hypervisors.

no, containers do not rely on hypervisors and also not based on hypervisors.

So, How they work?

Aha, Thus " without the need for starting any virtual machines" but they use "Operating system level virtualization". According to the "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operating-system-level_virtualization"
Containers not have any Overhead.
So, They are different technologies.

Not "no" overhead but "less" overhead. The kernel and base OS run at a level above the container and only the specific application component(s) run in the individual container(s). The idea is you should be able to pick and choose what you need for your application distinct from from other applications using the same kernel and base OS. The system with the kernel and the base OS run minimal OS components due to this as the idea is most things you need should come from the container(s) you choose to run.

To this degree the system with the kernel and base OS takes the place of what is a hypervisor in virtualization. The difference is that in full virtualization the hypervisor AND each guest system have full OS installations (where the guests don't have to have the same OS let alone kernel as the hypervisor).