Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

[WIP] OpenShift Mirror Registry Upgrade Proposal #11

Open
wants to merge 7 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

HammerMeetNail
Copy link

Work in progress for detailing how to perform upgrades with OMR

@@ -0,0 +1,128 @@
---
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are these and the other non-update enhancement files attached to this pull request accidentally? I don't see how they are relevant to the mirror-registry-upgrade.md proposal.

* Existing mirror registry installations should be detected and settings inherited
* Autogenerated certificates should be renewed on upgrade

### Non-Goals
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure if you want to consider it in-scope for this particular proposal or not, but another maintenance task folks will want to perform with a long-running registry is pruning old images to avoid unbounded storage growth. In the OpenShift-mirror context, this looks like:

  1. User decides to install OpenShift release oA.
  2. User installs a new mirror registry, which happens to be version mA.
  3. New OpenShift releases oB, oC, ... come out and get mirrored into the mirror registry.
  4. New mirror-registry releases mB, mC, ... come out, and the admin updates their mirror to use those versions.
  5. User realizes that they really don't need oA and oB in the mirror registry anymore, so they unpin them.
  6. Registry reaper removes all the layers and manifests and whatnot that were only needed for those unpinned OpenShift releases.

(4) is definitely in-scope for this enhancement. I'm wondering whether (5) is in-scope. I assume (6) would work out of the box, but if not, I'm curious about whether that's in-scope here too.

(5) isn't strictly unique to the mirror-registry workflow. Folks might theoretically want that with highly-available registry implementations as well. But while a few GiB of stale content on a highly-available registry isn't that big a deal, that same amount of cruft on the single-node mirror-registry deployment seems like it might be something that folks would care about. And that's especially likely once we're throwing around TiBs.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants