4 ms·

Question: was this on regular CircleCI, or the v2 beta?

• alpb 10y ago
  Regular Circle CI. I do not have access to the v2 beta. For comparison here is the same Dockerfile built with Circle CI, it took 3m30s: https://cl.ly/0U1c2Q1n2S20/Image%202017-03-06%20at%209.50.31%20PM.png https://cl.ly/0U1c2Q1n2S20/Image%202017-03-06%20at%209.50.31... and Google Cloud Container Builder: https://cl.ly/3E1c3l1L2Q3o/Image%202017-03-06%20at%209.52.01%20PM.png https://cl.ly/3E1c3l1L2Q3o/Image%202017-03-06%20at%209.52.01... although Cloud Container Builder does not list how long each step it takes, it totals 1m10s.
  • aleksharma12 10y ago
    Hey, Dev Advocate at CircleCI here: Saw that you didn’t have 2.0 beta access; we’re actually opening that up to everyone this week, so keep an eye on our docs over the next few days. Biggest features you probably care about are the faster speeds/improved caching and native Docker support.
• philip1209 10y ago
  I tried setting up Docker deploys to K8S today on CircleCi v2 beta. I had a horribly difficult time getting it to work because running docker in the docker runtime is nearly impossible to do in a way that is compatible with Bazel.io. I ended up having to use the VM mode and it just felt like Circle v1.
  • shykes 10y ago
    Is there anything we can do to help on the Docker side?
  • skj 10y ago
    You may be interested in trying GCCB with the bazel build step: https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/cloud-builders/tree/master/bazel https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/cloud-builders/tree/m... In a GCCB build, we volume-mount in the VM host's docker daemon socket, so you can use the docker CLI, and related CLIs, with no additional setup. We initially tried a docker-in-docker approach here, but it was a bit too fragile. This attempt was quite some time ago, so it's possible things have improved.