dkirillov/distribution
1
0
Fork 0
forked from TrueCloudLab/distribution
Code Pull requests Activity

Add goals and feature discussion to ROADMAP

Browse source 
Signed-off-by: Stephen J Day <stephen.day@docker.com>
This commit is contained in:
Stephen J Day 2015-07-13 19:40:47 -07:00
parent 2451dd1c32
commit a8dd59ac44
1 changed files with 207 additions and 26 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

233
ROADMAP.md
View file

@ -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