Add goals and feature discussion to ROADMAP
Signed-off-by: Stephen J Day <stephen.day@docker.com>
This commit is contained in:
Stephen J Day
parent
2451dd1c32
commit
a8dd59ac44
233
ROADMAP.md
233
ROADMAP.md
@ -1,11 +1,17 @@
|
||||
# Roadmap
|
||||
|
||||
The Distribution Project consists of several components, some of which are still being defined. This document defines the high-level goals of the project, identifies the current components, and defines the release-relationship to the Docker Platform.
|
||||
The Distribution Project consists of several components, some of which are
|
||||
still being defined. This document defines the high-level goals of the
|
||||
project, identifies the current components, and defines the release-
|
||||
relationship to the Docker Platform.
|
||||
|
||||
* [Distribution Goals](#distribution-goals)
|
||||
* [Distribution Components](#distribution-components)
|
||||
* [Project Planning](#project-planning): release-relationship to the Docker Platform.
|
||||
|
||||
This road map is a living document, providing an overview of the goals and
|
||||
considerations made in respect of the future of the project.
|
||||
|
||||
## Distribution Goals
|
||||
|
||||
- Replace the existing [docker registry](github.com/docker/docker-registry)
|
||||
@ -30,41 +36,216 @@ implementation.
|
||||
|
||||
### Registry
|
||||
|
||||
Registry 2.0 is the first release of the next-generation registry. This is primarily
|
||||
focused on implementing the [new registry
|
||||
API](https://github.com/docker/distribution/blob/master/docs/spec/api.md), with
|
||||
a focus on security and performance.
|
||||
The new Docker registry is the main portion of the distribution repository.
|
||||
Registry 2.0 is the first release of the next-generation registry. This was
|
||||
primarily focused on implementing the [new registry
|
||||
API](https://github.com/docker/distribution/blob/master/docs/spec/api.md),
|
||||
with a focus on security and performance.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Registry 2.0
|
||||
Following from the Distribution project goals above, we have a set of goals
|
||||
for registry v2 that we would like to follow in the design. New features
|
||||
should be compared against these goals.
|
||||
|
||||
Features:
|
||||
#### Data Storage and Distribution First
|
||||
|
||||
- Faster push and pull
|
||||
- New, more efficient implementation
|
||||
- Simplified deployment
|
||||
- Full API specification for V2 protocol
|
||||
- Pluggable storage system (s3, azure, filesystem and inmemory supported)
|
||||
- Immutable manifest references ([#46](https://github.com/docker/distribution/issues/46))
|
||||
- Webhook notification system ([#42](https://github.com/docker/distribution/issues/42))
|
||||
- Native TLS Support ([#132](https://github.com/docker/distribution/pull/132))
|
||||
- Pluggable authentication system
|
||||
- Health Checks ([#230](https://github.com/docker/distribution/pull/230))
|
||||
The registry's first goal is to provide a reliable, consistent storage
|
||||
location for Docker images. The registry should only provide the minimal
|
||||
amount of indexing required to fetch image data and no more.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Registry 2.1
|
||||
This means we should be selective in new features and API additions, including
|
||||
those that may require expensive, ever growing indexes. Requests should be
|
||||
servable in "constant time".
|
||||
|
||||
Planned Features:
|
||||
#### Content Addressability
|
||||
|
||||
> **NOTE:** This feature list is incomplete at this time.
|
||||
All data objects used in the registry API should be content addressable.
|
||||
Content identifiers should be secure and verifiable. This provides a secure,
|
||||
reliable base from which to build more advanced content distribution systems.
|
||||
|
||||
- Support for Manifest V2, Schema 2 and explicit tagging objects ([#62](https://github.com/docker/distribution/issues/62), [#173](https://github.com/docker/distribution/issues/173))
|
||||
- Mirroring ([#19](https://github.com/docker/distribution/issues/19))
|
||||
- Flexible client package based on distribution interfaces ([#193](https://github.com/docker/distribution/issues/193)
|
||||
#### Content Agnostic
|
||||
|
||||
#### Registry 2.2
|
||||
In the past, changes to the image format would require large changes in Docker
|
||||
and the Registry. By decoupling the distribution and image format, we can
|
||||
allow the formats to progress without having to coordinate between the two.
|
||||
This means that we should be focused on decoupling Docker from the registry
|
||||
just as much as decoupling the registry from Docker. Such an approach will
|
||||
allow us to unlock new distribution models that haven't been possible before.
|
||||
|
||||
TBD
|
||||
We can take this further by saying that the new registry should be content
|
||||
agnostic. The registry provides a model of names, tags, manifests and content
|
||||
addresses and that model can be used to work with content.
|
||||
|
||||
***
|
||||
#### Simplicity
|
||||
|
||||
The new registry should be closer to a microservice component than its
|
||||
predecessor. This means it should have a narrower API and a low number of
|
||||
service dependencies. It should be easy to deploy.
|
||||
|
||||
This means that other solutions should be explored before changing the API or
|
||||
adding extra dependencies. If functionality is required, can it be added as an
|
||||
extension or companion service.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Extensibility
|
||||
|
||||
The registry should provide extension points to add functionality. By keeping
|
||||
the scope narrow, but providing the ability to add functionality.
|
||||
|
||||
Features like search, indexing, synchronization and registry explorers fall
|
||||
into this category. No such feature should be added unless we've found it
|
||||
impossible to do through an extension.
|
||||
|
||||
#### Active Feature Discussions
|
||||
|
||||
The following are feature discussions that are currently active.
|
||||
|
||||
If you don't see your favorite, unimplemented feature, feel free to contact us
|
||||
via IRC or the mailing list and we can talk about adding it. The goal here is
|
||||
to make sure that new features go through a rigid design process before
|
||||
landing in the registry.
|
||||
|
||||
##### Mirroring and Pull-through Caching
|
||||
|
||||
Mirroring and pull-through caching are related but slight different. We've
|
||||
adopted the term _mirroring_ to be a proper mirror of a registry, meaning it
|
||||
has all the content the upstream would have. Providing such mirrors in the
|
||||
Docker ecosystem is dependent on a solid trust system, which is still in the
|
||||
works.
|
||||
|
||||
The more commonly helpful feature is _pull-through caching_, where data is
|
||||
fetched from an upstream when not available in a local registry instance.
|
||||
|
||||
Please see the following issues:
|
||||
|
||||
- https://github.com/docker/distribution/issues/459
|
||||
|
||||
##### Peer to Peer transfer
|
||||
|
||||
Discussion has started here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rYDpSpJiQWmCQy8Cuiaa3NH-Co33oK_SC9HeXYo87QA/edit
|
||||
|
||||
##### Indexing, Search and Discovery
|
||||
|
||||
The original registry provided some implementation of search for use with
|
||||
private registries. Support has been elided from V2 since we'd like to both
|
||||
decouple search functionality from the registry. The makes the registry
|
||||
simpler to deploy, especially in use cases where search is not needed, and
|
||||
let's us decouple the image format from the registry.
|
||||
|
||||
There are explorations into using the catalog API and notification system to
|
||||
build external indexes. The current line of thought is that we will define a
|
||||
common search API to index and query docker images. Such a system could be run
|
||||
as a companion to a registry or set of registries to power discovery.
|
||||
|
||||
The main issue with search and discovery is that there are so many ways to
|
||||
accomplish it. There are two aspects to this project. The first is deciding on
|
||||
how it will be done, including an API definition that can work with changing
|
||||
data formats. The second is the process of integrating with `docker search`.
|
||||
We expect that someone attempts to address the problem with the existing tools
|
||||
and propose it as a standard search API or uses it to inform a standardization
|
||||
process. Once this has been explored, we integrate with the docker client.
|
||||
|
||||
Please see the following for more detail:
|
||||
|
||||
- https://github.com/docker/distribution/issues/206
|
||||
|
||||
##### Deletes
|
||||
|
||||
> __NOTE:__ Deletes are a much asked for feature. Before requesting this
|
||||
feature or participating in discussion, we ask that you read this section in
|
||||
full and understand the problems behind deletes.
|
||||
|
||||
While, at first glance, implementing deleting seems simple, there are a number
|
||||
mitigating factors that make many solutions not ideal or even pathological in
|
||||
the context of a registry. The following paragraph discuss the background and
|
||||
approaches that could be applied to a arrive at a solution.
|
||||
|
||||
The goal of deletes in any system is to remove unused or unneeded data. Only
|
||||
data requested for deletion should be removed and no other data. Removing
|
||||
unintended data is worse than _not_ removing data that was requested for
|
||||
removal but ideally, both are supported. Generally, according to this rule, we
|
||||
err on holding data longer than needed, ensuring that it is only removed when
|
||||
we can be certain that it can be removed. With the current behavior, we opt to
|
||||
hold onto the data forever, ensuring that data cannot be incorrectly removed.
|
||||
|
||||
To understand the problems with implementing deletes, one must understand the
|
||||
data model. All registry data is stored in a filesystem layout, implemented on
|
||||
a "storage driver", effectively a _virtual file system_ (VFS). The storage
|
||||
system must assume that this VFS layer will be eventually consistent and has
|
||||
poor read- after-write consistency, since this is the lower common denominator
|
||||
among the storage drivers. This is mitigated by writing values in reverse-
|
||||
dependent order, but makes wider transactional operations unsafe.
|
||||
|
||||
Layered on the VFS model is a content-addressable _directed, acyclic graph_
|
||||
(DAG) made up of blobs. Manifests reference layers. Tags reference manifests.
|
||||
Since the same data can be referenced by multiple manifests, we only store
|
||||
data once, even if it is in different repositories. Thus, we have a set of
|
||||
blobs, referenced by tags and manifests. If we want to delete a blob we need
|
||||
to be certain that it is no longer referenced by another manifest or tag. When
|
||||
we delete a manifest, we also can try to delete the referenced blobs. Deciding
|
||||
whether or not a blob has an active reference is the crux of the problem.
|
||||
|
||||
Conceptually, deleting a manifest and its resources is quite simple. Just find
|
||||
all the manifests, enumerate the referenced blobs and delete the blobs not in
|
||||
that set. An astute observer will recognize this as a garbage collection
|
||||
problem. As with garbage collection in programming languages, this is very
|
||||
simple when one always has a consistent view. When one adds parallelism and an
|
||||
inconsistent view of data, it becomes very challenging.
|
||||
|
||||
A simple example can demonstrate this. Let's say we are deleting a manifest
|
||||
_A_ in one process. We scan the manifest and decide that all the blobs are
|
||||
ready for deletion. Concurrently, we have another process accepting a new
|
||||
manifest _B_ referencing one or more blobs from the manifest _A_. Manifest _B_
|
||||
is accepted and all the blobs are considered present, so the operation
|
||||
proceeds. The original process then deletes the referenced blobs, assuming
|
||||
they were unreferenced. The manifest _B_, which we thought had all of its data
|
||||
present, can no longer be served by the registry, since the dependent data has
|
||||
been deleted.
|
||||
|
||||
Deleting data from the registry safely requires some way to coordinate this
|
||||
operation. The following approaches are being considered:
|
||||
|
||||
- _Reference Counting_ - Maintain a count of references to each blob. This is
|
||||
challenging for a number of reasons: 1. maintaining a consistent consensus
|
||||
of reference counts across a set of Registries and 2. Building the initial
|
||||
list of reference counts for an existing registry. These challenges can be
|
||||
met with a consensus protocol like Paxos or Raft in the first case and a
|
||||
necessary but simple scan in the second..
|
||||
- _Lock the World GC_ - Halt all writes to the data store. Walk the data store
|
||||
and find all blob references. Delete all unreferenced blobs. This approach
|
||||
is very simple but requires disabling writes for a period of time while the
|
||||
service reads all data. This is slow and expensive but very accurate and
|
||||
effective.
|
||||
- _Generational GC_ - Do something similar to above but instead of blocking
|
||||
writes, writes are sent to another storage backend while reads are broadcast
|
||||
to the new and old backends. GC is then performed on the read-only portion.
|
||||
Because writes land in the new backend, the data in the read-only section
|
||||
can be safely deleted. The main drawbacks of this approach are complexity
|
||||
and coordination.
|
||||
- _Centralized Oracle_ - Using a centralized, transactional database, we can
|
||||
know exactly which data is referenced at any given time. This avoids
|
||||
coordination problem by managing this data in a single location. We trade
|
||||
off metadata scalability for simplicity and performance. This is a very good
|
||||
option for most registry deployments. This would create a bottleneck for
|
||||
registry metadata. However, metadata is generally not the main bottleneck
|
||||
when serving images.
|
||||
|
||||
Please let us know if other solutions exist that we have yet to enumerate.
|
||||
Note that for any approach, implementation is a massive consideration. For
|
||||
example, a mark-sweep based solution may seem simple but the amount of work in
|
||||
coordination offset the extra work it might take to build a _Centralized
|
||||
Oracle_. We'll accept proposals for any solution but please coordinate with us
|
||||
before dropping code.
|
||||
|
||||
At this time, we have traded off simplicity and ease of deployment for disk
|
||||
space. Simplicity and ease of deployment tend to reduce developer involvement,
|
||||
which is currently the most expensive resource in software engineering. Taking
|
||||
on any solution for deletes will greatly effect these factors, trading off
|
||||
very cheap disk space for a complex deployment and operational story.
|
||||
|
||||
Please see the following issues for more detail:
|
||||
|
||||
- https://github.com/docker/distribution/issues/422
|
||||
- https://github.com/docker/distribution/issues/461
|
||||
- https://github.com/docker/distribution/issues/462
|
||||
|
||||
### Distribution Package
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user