6 ms·

Google Container Registry

106 points by fbueno 11y ago

soccerdave 11y ago
I really expected for Amazon to release a Container Registry before they took the preview status off ECS. Looks like Google beat them to the punch. I'd still be very interested to see if Amazon will release something soon.
- istvan__ 11y ago
  Yes a little bit of competition in the container registry space would be good for everybody. I need to have a closer look how good is this Google offering. One problem that we run into was security when started to use Docker. The management did not want to upload the images to any cloud provider, so we were forced to create a registry in our infrastructure. For this use case Registry 2.0 is going to be a better option. http://blog.docker.com/2015/04/faster-and-better-image-distribution-with-registry-2-0-and-engine-1-6/ http://blog.docker.com/2015/04/faster-and-better-image-distr...
notatoad 11y ago
>Pricing >During the beta period you will be charged only for the Google Cloud Storage storage and network egress consumed by your Docker images. Dammit google, this is not how you price things. Especially when people have been burned by price jumps on your service before. I don't know why i'd bother integrating with a service when I have no idea what the cost will be.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Dammit google, this is not how you price things. It actually is the way Google quite often prices things. > I don't know why i'd bother integrating with a service when I have no idea what the cost will be. Then maybe a pre-release service for which Google has not yet developed the experience with usage patterns that will let it price the service appropriately isn't for you. But that's okay, its not intended for everybody -- even everybody for whom the service would be appropriate when GA -- hence the Beta label.
  - e12e 11y ago
    >> Dammit google, this is not how you price things. > It actually is the way Google quite often prices things. True, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. > maybe a pre-release service (...) Also true.
- kolev 11y ago
  This could end up being more expensive than Docker's own or CoreOS's. People would rather pay a flat fee rather than worrying about storage and bandwidth.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- cbd1984 11y ago
  > During the beta period you will be charged only for the Google Cloud Storage storage and network egress consumed by your Docker images. Is there any guarantee the cost will be a linear function of those things? Quadratic? Quartic? Exponential? Fine print, fine print everywhere.
  - cbd1984 11y ago
    Down voted by fans I see.
- res0nat0r 11y ago
  Your quote says it is a beta service. If you are betting the farm on beta services or expecting them not to change under you during a beta period, it really is only your own fault.
- piggity 11y ago
  A large part of the issue with pricing on Google App Engine (which is the one that still stings for many people) - was that they were building on a relatively proprietary platform. The advantage of Docker based compute engines is that your lock-in is a lot lower - providers have to compete on price and features without locking customers in. Where I work, we're always balancing using new AWS features against how hard it would be to migrate out to another provider or take our solutions on-premises.
Animats 11y ago
Next, the Google Container Store? Only Google-approved containers will be allowed. No competing with "core Google services".
smrtinsert 11y ago
Aweosme, I can't wait till they pull the plug out from under me.
- derefr 11y ago
  I imagine that wouldn't be very likely in this case—this is much less like Google's usual "let's build some random thing and see if customers like it", and instead very much in the vein of the way Amazon treats AWS: as a set of infrastructure services they themselves consume, but also happen to expose to the public. Now, they might make it private in the future, but as long as Google are using containers for everything, I don't think the service is likely to just go unmaintained and fade away.
  - lsc 11y ago
    > very much in the vein of the way Amazon treats AWS: as a set of infrastructure services they themselves consume, but also happen to expose to the public. Reference? I've heard (unsubstantiated but believable) rumors that the servers and system that run the amazon website are rather different from the servers and system they sell the rest of us.
    - derefr 11y ago
      Started that way; now increasingly unified.
  - lern_too_spel 11y ago
    From what I know of Google's infrastructure, they are very unlikely to be consuming this internally, just like the rest of GCP. Just because they use containers doesn't mean they use this container repository. Just because they use Java web servers doesn't mean they use AppEngine.
    - cmelbye 11y ago
      Google absolutely uses App Engine internally, and many other GCP offerings as well. This is simply inaccurate.
tonyhb 11y ago
Is this specifically aimed at compute cloud users for faster deploys? I would much rather go with dockerhub than use this. Egress pricing sucks. I'd rather have it from docker, who made the tool for my containers, than google. What about docker 1.6, with image and container labels? Will Google keep this up to date?
- hueving 11y ago
  >I'd rather have it from docker, who made the tool for my containers, than google. Interesting take on things. It's mostly contributions from Google that made containers viable in the first place.
  - tonyhb 11y ago
    True that, the original LXC library was Google. Then Docker wrote their own implementation called libcontainer (and systemd-nspawn popped about). While Google made containers possible I think Docker made them happen. I can't imagine committing an LXC container and pushing it to a repo if it weren't for docker. Nor would I want to manage raw networking in LXC. Nor sharing of filesystems.
    - justicezyx 11y ago
      Well, the world outside of Google discovered container, that's a more appropriate description. Google is a living endorsement to the paradigm. But Docker didnt make them happen, docker merely discovered it.
    - asuffield 11y ago
      (Tedious disclaimer: my opinion, not my employer's. Not representing anybody else. I work at Google, not on borg) You might find the borg paper very interesting: http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/43438.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.co... The bits of containers that made it out into lxc are essentially borglet features. The rest of the infrastructure around it was never released to the outside world, and now docker is recreating some of that infrastructure. We've had borg for a long time ;) There's lots more detail in the paper about how these pieces relate to each other.
subway 11y ago
This looks like it still uses Docker's craptastic who-needs-image-verification protocol. No thanks.
kuni-toko-tachi 11y ago
Nothing about google inspires confidence, especially Eric schimdt. Socially retarded autistic people don't inspire much confidence. Worse, they are dangerous.
asher_ 11y ago
Interesting. I've been using google/docker-registry to have a private docker registry based in Google Cloud Storage for some time now. I wonder what additional benefits this service will provide for the (presumably) higher price once it comes out of beta.
nickleefly 11y ago
Still beta, Google should have competitive price

106 points by fbueno 11y ago

I really expected for Amazon to release a Container Registry before they took the preview status off ECS. Looks like Google beat them to the punch. I'd still be very interested to see if Amazon will release something soon.

istvan__ 11y ago
Yes a little bit of competition in the container registry space would be good for everybody. I need to have a closer look how good is this Google offering. One problem that we run into was security when started to use Docker. The management did not want to upload the images to any cloud provider, so we were forced to create a registry in our infrastructure. For this use case Registry 2.0 is going to be a better option. http://blog.docker.com/2015/04/faster-and-better-image-distribution-with-registry-2-0-and-engine-1-6/ http://blog.docker.com/2015/04/faster-and-better-image-distr...

notatoad 11y ago

>Pricing >During the beta period you will be charged only for the Google Cloud Storage storage and network egress consumed by your Docker images. Dammit google, this is not how you price things. Especially when people have been burned by price jumps on your service before. I don't know why i'd bother integrating with a service when I have no idea what the cost will be.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> Dammit google, this is not how you price things. It actually is the way Google quite often prices things. > I don't know why i'd bother integrating with a service when I have no idea what the cost will be. Then maybe a pre-release service for which Google has not yet developed the experience with usage patterns that will let it price the service appropriately isn't for you. But that's okay, its not intended for everybody -- even everybody for whom the service would be appropriate when GA -- hence the Beta label.
- e12e 11y ago
  >> Dammit google, this is not how you price things. > It actually is the way Google quite often prices things. True, that doesn't mean it's a good idea. > maybe a pre-release service (...) Also true.
kolev 11y ago
This could end up being more expensive than Docker's own or CoreOS's. People would rather pay a flat fee rather than worrying about storage and bandwidth.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
cbd1984 11y ago
> During the beta period you will be charged only for the Google Cloud Storage storage and network egress consumed by your Docker images. Is there any guarantee the cost will be a linear function of those things? Quadratic? Quartic? Exponential? Fine print, fine print everywhere.
- cbd1984 11y ago
  Down voted by fans I see.
res0nat0r 11y ago
Your quote says it is a beta service. If you are betting the farm on beta services or expecting them not to change under you during a beta period, it really is only your own fault.
piggity 11y ago
A large part of the issue with pricing on Google App Engine (which is the one that still stings for many people) - was that they were building on a relatively proprietary platform. The advantage of Docker based compute engines is that your lock-in is a lot lower - providers have to compete on price and features without locking customers in. Where I work, we're always balancing using new AWS features against how hard it would be to migrate out to another provider or take our solutions on-premises.

Animats 11y ago

Next, the Google Container Store? Only Google-approved containers will be allowed. No competing with "core Google services".

smrtinsert 11y ago

Aweosme, I can't wait till they pull the plug out from under me.

derefr 11y ago
I imagine that wouldn't be very likely in this case—this is much less like Google's usual "let's build some random thing and see if customers like it", and instead very much in the vein of the way Amazon treats AWS: as a set of infrastructure services they themselves consume, but also happen to expose to the public. Now, they might make it private in the future, but as long as Google are using containers for everything, I don't think the service is likely to just go unmaintained and fade away.
- lsc 11y ago
  > very much in the vein of the way Amazon treats AWS: as a set of infrastructure services they themselves consume, but also happen to expose to the public. Reference? I've heard (unsubstantiated but believable) rumors that the servers and system that run the amazon website are rather different from the servers and system they sell the rest of us.
  - derefr 11y ago
    Started that way; now increasingly unified.
- lern_too_spel 11y ago
  From what I know of Google's infrastructure, they are very unlikely to be consuming this internally, just like the rest of GCP. Just because they use containers doesn't mean they use this container repository. Just because they use Java web servers doesn't mean they use AppEngine.
  - cmelbye 11y ago
    Google absolutely uses App Engine internally, and many other GCP offerings as well. This is simply inaccurate.

tonyhb 11y ago

Is this specifically aimed at compute cloud users for faster deploys? I would much rather go with dockerhub than use this. Egress pricing sucks. I'd rather have it from docker, who made the tool for my containers, than google. What about docker 1.6, with image and container labels? Will Google keep this up to date?

hueving 11y ago
>I'd rather have it from docker, who made the tool for my containers, than google. Interesting take on things. It's mostly contributions from Google that made containers viable in the first place.
- tonyhb 11y ago
  True that, the original LXC library was Google. Then Docker wrote their own implementation called libcontainer (and systemd-nspawn popped about). While Google made containers possible I think Docker made them happen. I can't imagine committing an LXC container and pushing it to a repo if it weren't for docker. Nor would I want to manage raw networking in LXC. Nor sharing of filesystems.
  - justicezyx 11y ago
    Well, the world outside of Google discovered container, that's a more appropriate description. Google is a living endorsement to the paradigm. But Docker didnt make them happen, docker merely discovered it.
  - asuffield 11y ago
    (Tedious disclaimer: my opinion, not my employer's. Not representing anybody else. I work at Google, not on borg) You might find the borg paper very interesting: http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/43438.pdf http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.co... The bits of containers that made it out into lxc are essentially borglet features. The rest of the infrastructure around it was never released to the outside world, and now docker is recreating some of that infrastructure. We've had borg for a long time ;) There's lots more detail in the paper about how these pieces relate to each other.

subway 11y ago

This looks like it still uses Docker's craptastic who-needs-image-verification protocol. No thanks.

kuni-toko-tachi 11y ago

Nothing about google inspires confidence, especially Eric schimdt. Socially retarded autistic people don't inspire much confidence. Worse, they are dangerous.

asher_ 11y ago

Interesting. I've been using google/docker-registry to have a private docker registry based in Google Cloud Storage for some time now. I wonder what additional benefits this service will provide for the (presumably) higher price once it comes out of beta.

nickleefly 11y ago

Still beta, Google should have competitive price