Love 2.0, just needs to be a bit more reliable


We’ve been able to bring down our 30 min builds on CircleCI 1.0 down to less than 10 min on 2.0 with the image layer caching or 15 min with the machine executor. It has come quite a way in the past few months to the point that we’re considering switching our main build to 2.0. It just needs a little bit more polish in the reliability department.

For us, 2.0 definitely looks to be an upgrade, especially since we already use Docker for development and use Docker for part of our production environment. Our CI scripts are simpler, and as I wrote above, way faster than in 1.0. The only thing holding us back are some random errors and hangs (for which I’ve made a few posts about recently), and hopefully these will be resolved very soon.

Reading the forums, a lot of the questions seem to come from unfamiliarity with Docker and/or remote Docker hosts. The documentation could be improved with examples of best practices for both the Docker and machine executor types. Complete best practice reference setups for common configurations that uses all the features available in 2.0 with both the Docker and machine executors or even small tips like using docker cp to share files with the remote Docker host I think would go a long way.

Also, kudos to the support on the forums for the prompt replies to our posts. If I have one request though, it would be for a kind of micro-retrospective or postmortem on why and how of the issues and resolutions rather than a one-line “this issue is resolved now” message. I think as devs, we all are curious about what goes on behind the scenes, and a little description would satiate that while providing more confidence in your product.


Hi @sakai135

Thank you for providing this detailed feedback.

I are glad you liked CircleCI 2.0.

You made a great suggestion. I will discuss with 2.0 team about adding best practices and examples for the executor types.

I understand the need for more information when incidents happen. 2.0 component was added to our CircleCI status page as a first step in this direction and for us to be more transperent. We will continue to improve this process as we progress in our Beta milestone.


I could not have said it better myself. This post is nearly identical to our experiences migrating select projects to CircleCI 2.0.

@anon30319619, I would answer your question with the above post. We’ve had some reliability/consistency issues, but mostly minor. @sakai135 makes a great point about unfamiliarity with remote Docker networking and I strongly agree with the mention about best practices, common configurations for 2.0 features, and tips and ‘gotchas’ when moving to 2.0. Really, the biggest downer for me is simply the time spent learning and configuring in 2.0 – however once I have a project that works, the benefits are great.

My overall experience with CCI2.0 has been positive, especially with help from the forums and very good support from CCI employees.


Hi ReedFlinch,

Thank you for providing more examples.

We are currently working on updating 2.0 onboarding experience and the issues that you have listed are the ones that we intend to improve.

We will continue to roll out changes in the coming weeks.