we are developing an application for our customer. The customer must not see the code, since we do not offer the source code to them. Our offer only contains the setup, maintenance and running the Application.
So, we have the Source code here in our private Git. We compile it with the dockerfile and make a docker image out of it.
Since we have no remote access to the customer's Container registry, we cannot simply push a new release version to it.
Is there a way to get new release versions into the customer's registry, without copying the release code to the customer?
Maybe pre-compiling, then copy the compiled Code to the customer?
Greetings and thanks in advance!
A docker image can be saved as a tar file using
docker save -o <filename.tar> <image_name>
You can send that file to your customer, and they can load that file as an image using
docker load -i <filename.tar>
Now they can push that image to their private repository.
1 approach should be pushing the docker image to your private hosted Docker registry. And then at your Customer's place, you can use a tool like Nexus(Check here) and configure the Proxy Docker repository which will pull the images from your private docker registry. In this fashion, you are not publishing your code but Docker Image to the customer and they can pull it.
For Proxy Repository information, Check here
Related
My overall goal is to install a self-hosted gitlab-runner that is restricted to use prepared docker images from my own docker registry only.
For that I have a system.d configuration that looks like:
/etc/systemd/system/docker.service.d/allow-private-registry-only.conf
BLOCK_REGISTRY='--block-registry=all'
ADD_REGISTRY='--add-registry=my.private.registry:8080'
By this, docker pull is allowed to pull images from my.private.registry/ only.
After I had managed to get this working, I wanted to clean up my local registry and remove old docker images. It was during that process when I stumbled over a docker image named gitlab/gitlab-runner-helper which presumably is some component used by the gitlab-runner itself and presumably has been pulled from docker.io.
Now I'm wondering if it is even possible/advisable to block images from docker.io when using a gitlab-runner?
Any hints are appreciated!
I feel my sovereign duty to extend the accepted answer (it is great btw), because the word 'handle' basically tells us not so much, it is too abstract. Let me explain the whole flow in far more details:
When the build is about to begin, gitlab-runner creates a docker volume (you can observe it with docker volume ls if you want). This volume will server as a storage for caches and artifacts that you are using during the build.
The second thing - You will have at least 2 containers involved in each stage: gitlab-runner-helper, container and the container created from the image you specified (in .gitlab-ci.yml or in config.toml). What gitlab-runner-helper container does it, essentially, just cloning the remote git repository (that you are building) in the aforementioned docker volume along with caches and artifacts.
It can do it becuase within gitlab-runner-helper image itself are 2 important utilities: git (obviously - to clone the repo) and gitlab-runner-helper binary (this utility can pull and push artifacts, caches)
The gitlab-runner-helper container starts before each stage for a couple of seconds, to pull artifacts and caches, and then terminates. After that the container, created from image that you specified will be launched, ant it will also have this volume (from step 1) attached - this is how it receives artifacts btw.
The rest of the details about the registry from where gitlab-runner-helper get pulled are described by #Nicolas pretty well. I append this comment just for someone, who, perhaps, want to know what exactly means this sneaky 'handle' word.
Hope it helps, have a nice day, my friend!
gitlab-runner-helper image is used by GitLab Runner to handle Git, artifacts, and cache operations for docker, docker+machine or kubernetes executors.
As you prefer pulling an image from a private registry, you can override the helper image. Your configuration could be :
[[runners]]
(...)
executor = "docker"
[runners.docker]
(...)
helper_image = "my.private.registry:8080/gitlab/gitlab-runner-helper:tag"
Please ensure the image is present on your registry or your configuration enable proxying docker hub or registry.gitlab.com. For this last, you need to run at least Gitlab runner version 13.7 and having enabled FF_GITLAB_REGISTRY_HELPER_IMAGE feature flag.
Good day all,
Anyone knows if it's possible to just pull a single container from github? I do have this link https://github.com/aws/sagemaker-pytorch-training-toolkit and I will like to pull the container in this link https://github.com/aws/sagemaker-pytorch-training-toolkit/tree/master/src/sagemaker_pytorch_container.
I did try using build docker build -t https://github.com/abc/sagemaker-pytorch-training-toolkit.git to just build an image of one file but there's an init.py file which i'm not sure if its necessary.
Thanks
You are on a wrong path.
Github does not store docker images, so there is no way you can pull it from there.
AWS Sagemaker provides pre-built images, you just need to select the one you want to use when creating an instance. see https://docs.aws.amazon.com/sagemaker/latest/dg/howitworks-create-ws.html
If you need a docker with pytorch, just run docker pull pytorch/pytorch
I'm trying to download a tagged docker image
docker pull clkao/postgres-plv8:10-2
and, in a compose file,
postgres:
image: clkao/postgres-plv8:10-2
But receive a manifest not found exception.
Unless I'm mistaken, that tag exists in Docker Hub, however I notice that it doesn't appear on the tags list.
Am I doing something wrong? Or is this perhaps an issue with Docker Hub or the way that repo has been set up?
If it isn't 'my fault', what's a recommendation to move forward? Create my own Dockerfile perhaps?
You might also try
docker pull -a <image>.
The -a will pull all versions of that image, which at least lets you know what is there.
(This is less useful if you really need a specific version, but helped me when I tried to pull an image that for some reason did not have a 'latest' tag.)
Edit: This is actually a really bad idea, since it will pull down the entire history, which for many repositories could be many GB. Better to go look at the repository site and see what tag you want. Note to self: don't post answers when you are tired. :-(
You get the error message because there exist no tag with "10-2".
You can try to figure out why and contact the repository owner or you can try to build your own one.
I just got over this "manifest for / not found: manifest unknown: The named manifest is not known to the registry."
Using
docker login <repo>
Check the docker's image also not only that the tag exists, I was trying to run Flyway version 5.0.1 for an image flyway/flyway which version did not exist, it existed only in version flyway/flyway:latest it seems, whereas 5.0.1 existed and I pulled it but in/from a different repository name, with repository name boxfuse/flyway.
for the error message 'docker manifest unknown'
When you use docker pull, without a tag, it will default to the tag :latest. Make sure that when we are building a image add tag latest or we can access the image by the tag name after image name with colon
I think you are trying to tag your image as v8.10.2. Make sure while tagging image locally you use same tag which you want to pull in future. So steps will be like below:
docker build -t clkao/postgres-pl:v8.10.2 .
docker push clkao/postgres-pl:v8.10.2
docker pull clkao/postgres-pl:v8.10.2
If this is from Git via docker.pkg.github.com then you need to switch to use ghcr.io. The former is deprecated and does not support the manifest endpoint so some docker clients, when they attempt to download various resources, fail with this error message. If you instead publish your image to ghcr (Github Container Repository), the docker image pulling process should complete successfully.
cd <dir with Dockerfile in it>
docker build -f Dockerfile -t ghcr.io/<org_id>/<project_id>:<version> .
docker push ghcr.io/<org_id>/<project_id>:<version>
More info here: https://docs.github.com/en/packages/working-with-a-github-packages-registry/migrating-to-the-container-registry-from-the-docker-registry
Note: The Container registry is currently in public beta and subject
to change. During the beta, storage and bandwidth are free. To use the
Container registry, you must enable the feature preview. For more
information, see "Introduction to GitHub Packages" and "Enabling
improved container support with the Container registry."
I'm setting up a CI/CD workflow for my organization but I'm missing the final piece of the puzzle. Surely this is a solved problem, or do I have to write my own?
The full picture.
I'm running a few EC2 instances on AWS, each running docker in its native swarm mode. A few services are running here which I've started manually via docker service create ....
When a developer commits source code a trigger is sent to jenkins to pull the new code and build a new docker image which is then pushed to my private registry.
All is well and good up to here, but how do I get the new image onto my docker hosts and the running container automatically updated to the new version?
Docker documentation states (here) that the registry can send events to configurable endpoints when a new image gets pushed onto it. This is what I want to automatically react to by having my docker hosts then pull the new image and stop, destroy and restart the service using that new version (with the same env flags, labels, etc etc), but I'm not finding any solution to this that fits my use case.
I've found v2tec/watchtower but it's not swarm-aware nor can it pull from a private registry at the time of writing this question.
Preferably I want a docker image I can deploy on my docker manager which listens to registry events (after pointing the registry config at it) and does the magic I need.
Cost is an issue, but time is less so, so I'm more inclined writing my own solution than I am adopting a fee-based service for this.
One option you have is to SSH to swarm master from Jenkins using SSH plugin and pull the new image and update the service when new image is pushed to the registry.
If you are making a service with a Dockerfile is it preferred for you to build an image with the Dockerfile and push it to the registry -- rather than distribute the Dockerfile (and repo) for people to build their images?
What use cases favour Dockerfile+repo distribution, and what use case favour Registry distribution?
I'd imagine the same question could be applied to source code versus binary package installs.
Pushing to a central shared registry allows you to freeze and certify a particular configuration and then make it available to others in your organisation.
At DevTable we were initially using a Dockerfile that was run when we deployed our servers in order to generate our Docker images. As our docker image become more complex and had more dependencies, it was taking longer and longer to generate the image from the Dockerfile. What we really needed was a way to generate the image once and then pull the finished product to our servers.
Normally, one would accomplish this by pushing their image to index.docker.io, however we have proprietary code that we couldn't publish to the world. You may also end up in such a situation if you're planning to build a hosted product around Docker.
To address this need in to community, we built Quay, which aims to be the Github of Docker images. Check it out and let us know if it solves a need for you.
Private repositories on your own server are also an option.
To run the server, clone the https://github.com/dotcloud/docker-registry to your own server.
To use your own server, prefix the tag with the address of the registry's host. For example:
# Tag to create a repository with the full registry location.
# The location (e.g. localhost.localdomain:5000) becomes
# a permanent part of the repository name
$ sudo docker tag 0u812deadbeef your_server.example.com:5000/repo_name
# Push the new repository to its home location on your server
$ sudo docker push your_server.example.com:5000/repo_name
(see http://docs.docker.io.s3-website-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/use/workingwithrepository/#private-registry)
I think it depends a little bit on your application, but I would prefer the Dockerfile:
A Dockerfile...
... in the root of a project makes it super easy to build and run it, it is just one command.
... can be changed by a developer if needed.
... is documentation about how to build your project
... is very small compared with an image which could be useful for people with a slow internet connection
... is in the same location as the code, so when people checkout the code, they will find it.
An Image in a registry...
... is already build and ready!
... must be maintained. If you commit new code or update your application you must also update the image.
... must be crafted carefully: Can the configuration be changed? How you handle the logs? How big is it? Do you package an NGINX within the image or is this part of the outer world? As #Mark O'Connor said, you will freeze a certain configuration, but that's maybe not the configuration someone-else want to use.
This is why I would prefer the Dockerfile. It is the same with a Vagrantfile - it would prefer the Vagrantfile instead of the VM image. And it is the same with a ANT or Maven script - it would prefer the build script instead of the packaged artifact (at least if I want to contribute code to the project).