Where it gets interesting is that the SQL Server container is also where the database files are stored by default. I raised a point (which Grant and others have already noted in the past) that persisted storage volumes allow us to throw away a SQL Server container without throwing away the database files, provided that the container is set up to use that persisted storage.
For example, I can map the SQL Server container to a local directory on my Ubuntu or Windows Server, or — as is the case with Kubernetes — a second container can serve as the storage volume. SQL Server is then just a compute engine, or a “service” as Anthony points out in the Twitter thread.
Because every rule has a counter-example (even this one), there are cases when you do want the data to live with the container. For example, a test database for a unit test runner should probably live inside the container rather than being a persisted volume. The reason is that you can blow away the database after a test run and start over for the next run. Putting together a database for a hackathon or user group can be another exception for the same reason. But for pretty much every other purpose, I’d rather have a persisted volume.