3 ms·
> This entire post is just unnecessary fear-mongering. You perhaps missed the bottom 30% suggesting there may be better options. Docker's registry protocol t
by ralph87 6y ago
> This entire post is just unnecessary fear-mongering.
You perhaps missed the bottom 30% suggesting there may be better options.
Docker's registry protocol treats layers essentially as opaque slabs, as any user will no doubt be aware, where update of a single timestamp or byte of a file could mean the reupload (and download) of a potentially unlimited amount of data. While that architecture has its perks (simplicity, sequential IO patterns suited to the magnetic disks of 2013), there are obvious downsides.
We have plenty of systems just like Docker capable of managing Docker-like file counts without the obscene bandwidth abuse, we just don't call them registries. They have names like Perforce, Subversion and even (some Microsoft variant) of Git. Eliminating the data gravity angle is impossible, but reducing its potency by several orders of magnitude is not only possible but has already been done repeatedly in many popularly deployed systems.
This is not to suggest replacing registry with Git, but perhaps some graph-like manifest format combined with some new "fetch-multiple-objects" protocol verb would be all required to bring the cost of running a registry down to essentially a non-issue.
- tidepod12 6y agoYou seem to be all over the place with your issues. Are you mad that AWS has bandwidth limits, or are you mad that AWS is encouraging the use of Docker altogether, or do you just have some kind of vendetta against the boogeyman that is AWS? Docker registries are how things are done right now. And the changes to Docker Hub that happened this week have a significant impact on the Docker ecosystem. This announcement is about solving that impact now, because developers need a solution now. This doesn't have anything to do with any hypothetical improvements to the Docker ecosystem or Docker data usage that may otherwise be in progress by [insert company here].
- ralph87 6y agoIt seems you have assumed quite some dictatorial control over what is appropriate to discuss on this thread. This is entirely unconstructive. Here we're looking at a product launch with clear lock-in properties, that is enabled in large part by an architectural issue that has already been exhaustively solved by other software. That's a point worth sharing
- tidepod12 6y agoAt no point in my comment did I say anything about what's allowed to be discussed in this thread. You meanwhile, built a strawman that first started with complaints about the bandwidth. When called on it, you deflected to a different point about Docker architecture. And now, when called on that, you deflect again. Please reflect on the constructiveness of your own comments. You are the one intentionally deflecting discussion.
- ralph87 6y agoI'm struggling to maintain an open mind, but from my perspective it is clear this "deflection" appeared in the original comment.