Story #3761
closed
As a user, I want to run crane on a remote server with published Docker content
0%
Description
Motivation¶
Pulp supports to distribute content to remote servers using rsync
distributors. For e.g. RPM and ISO repositories, the published content
is sufficient to be able to serve repositories on the remote
server. The same should be possible for Docker content (requiring
Crane on the remote server to provide the Docker Registry API)
Problem¶
The files published by Pulp's Docker web distributor have two distinct users:
1. Apache httpd (or other web server) for serving static content
2. Redirect files for Crane
In contrast to other rsync distributors, the Docker rsync distributor
does not distribute the output of the web distributor. Instead it only
publishes the content (i.e. no redirect files) to support the CDN use
case.
Implementation options¶
- Enhance rsync distributor to create redirect files
Essentially, this requires the rsync publisher to do the same steps
as the web publisher
As the layout of the rsynced file tree should not change (i.e. no
`app` path), the redirect file should be at the same location as in
the 'master' tree of the web publisher (i.e. JSON file at the root
of the published tree). - Add a second rsync distributor that acts as a post-distributor of
the web publisher.
This would add a more 'conventional' rsync distributor.
Updated by amacdona@redhat.com almost 6 years ago
- Project changed from Pulp to Docker Support
Updated by dkliban@redhat.com almost 6 years ago
The POC[0] for Crane looks good to me.
This story seems to be all about making a new rsync distributor for Docker. Do you still see that as necessary?
[0] https://github.com/Telekom-PD/crane/commit/7b065b1dd96281e31c96de61a03b3293b5c2bd89
Updated by gmbnomis almost 6 years ago
dkliban@redhat.com wrote:
This story seems to be all about making a new rsync distributor for Docker. Do you still see that as necessary?
We still need the feature to support remote crane instances, but the implementation within Pulp is only one of the implementation options. We control Pulp as part of a larger workflow and we could also implement an rsync of the redirect files as an additional step in that workflow.
Honestly, it just boils down to how much effort it will be in the end. That's why I asked on the list and added the story: We would like to find out what is the best way to add this feature to Pulp and how complicated it would be. If you do not want to spend that effort, that's perfectly fine with me. Otherwise, I would love to hear your suggestions and take a decision, then.
Regarding the Crane feature: How should we proceed with that one?
Updated by dkliban@redhat.com almost 6 years ago
Let's create a separate ticket for the Crane feature. Then submit a PR with your changes.
Updated by dag almost 6 years ago
Created Story for the discussed Crane feature: https://pulp.plan.io/issues/3857
PR will follow in the next days
Updated by bmbouter about 5 years ago
- Status changed from NEW to CLOSED - WONTFIX
Updated by bmbouter about 5 years ago
Pulp 2 is approaching maintenance mode, and this Pulp 2 ticket is not being actively worked on. As such, it is being closed as WONTFIX. Pulp 2 is still accepting contributions though, so if you want to contribute a fix for this ticket, please reopen or comment on it. If you don't have permissions to reopen this ticket, or you want to discuss an issue, please reach out via the developer mailing list.
.