←back to thread

Show HN: Unregistry – “docker push” directly to servers without a registry

(github.com)
726 points psviderski | 1 comments | 18 Jun 25 23:17 UTC | HN request time: 0.206s | source

I got tired of the push-to-registry/pull-from-registry dance every time I needed to deploy a Docker image.

In certain cases, using a full-fledged external (or even local) registry is annoying overhead. And if you think about it, there's already a form of registry present on any of your Docker-enabled hosts — the Docker's own image storage.

So I built Unregistry [1] that exposes Docker's (containerd) image storage through a standard registry API. It adds a `docker pussh` command that pushes images directly to remote Docker daemons over SSH. It transfers only the missing layers, making it fast and efficient.

  docker pussh myapp:latest user@server
Under the hood, it starts a temporary unregistry container on the remote host, pushes to it through an SSH tunnel, and cleans up when done.

I've built it as a byproduct while working on Uncloud [2], a tool for deploying containers across a network of Docker hosts, and figured it'd be useful as a standalone project.

Would love to hear your thoughts and use cases!

[1]: https://github.com/psviderski/unregistry

[2]: https://github.com/psviderski/uncloud

Show context
shykes ◴[19 Jun 25 23:37 UTC] No.44323506[source]▶
Docker creator here. I love this. In my opinion the ideal design would have been:

1. No distinction between docker engine and docker registry. Just a single server that can store, transfer and run containers as needed. It would have been a much more robust building block, and would have avoided the regrettable drift between how the engine & registry store images.

2. push-to-cluster deployment. Every production cluster should have a distributed image store, and pushing images to this store should be what triggers a deployment. The current status quo - push image to registry; configure cluster; individual nodes of the cluster pull from registry - is brittle and inefficient. I advocated for a better design, but the inertia was already too great, and the early Kubernetes community was hostile to any idea coming from Docker.

replies(1): >>44324712 #
1. psviderski ◴[20 Jun 25 04:19 UTC] No.44324712[source]▶
Hey Solomon, thank you for sharing your thoughts, love your work!

1. Yeah agreed, it's a bit of a mess that we have at least three different file system layouts for images and two image stores in the engine. I believe it's still not too late for Docker to achieve what you described without breaking the current model. Not sure if they care though, they're having hard times

2. Hm, push-to-cluster deployment sounds clever. I'm definitely thinking about a distributed image store, e.g. embedding unregistry in every node so that they can pull and share images between each other. But triggering a deployment on push is something I need to think through. Thanks for the idea!