←back to thread

726 points psviderski | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.213s | 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
remram ◴[] No.44314464[source]
Does it start a unregistry container on the remote/receiving end or the local/sending end? I think that runs remotely. I wonder if you could go the other way instead?
replies(2): >>44314647 #>>44316429 #
psviderski ◴[] No.44316429[source]
It starts an unregistry container on the remote side. I wonder, what's the use case on your mind for doing it the other way around?
replies(1): >>44329162 #
1. remram ◴[] No.44329162[source]
I guess I feel a little dirty running the container on the prod server. My machine has all the dev tools, and it is also where I install and run this pussh tool, so I would rather have the container run there too.