Docker Downsides: Container Cons to Consider before Adopting Docker

Containers don't run at bare-metal speeds. Containers consume resources more efficiently than virtual machines. But containers are still subject to performance overhead due to overlay networking, interfacing between containers and the host system and so on. If you want 100 percent bare-metal performance, you need to use bare metal, not containers.

The container ecosystem is fractured. Although the core Docker platform is open source, some container products don't work with other ones — usually due to competition between the companies that back them. For example, OpenShift, Red Hat's container-as-a-service platform, only works with the Kubernetes orchestrator.

Persistent data storage is complicated. By design, all of the data inside a container disappears forever when the container shuts down, unless you save it somewhere else first. There are ways to save data persistently in Docker, such as Docker Data Volumes, but this is arguably a challenge that still has yet to be addressed in a seamless way.

Graphical applications don't work well. Docker was designed as a solution for deploying server applications that don't require a graphical interface. While there are some creative strategies (such as X11 video forwarding) that you can use to run a GUI app inside a container, these solutions are clunky at best.

Not all applications benefit from containers. In general, only applications that are designed to run as a set of discreet microservices stand to gain the most from containers. Otherwise, Docker's only real benefit is that it can simplify application delivery by providing an easy packaging mechanism.