▲ | revicon 3 days ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Is this different from using a remote docker context? My workflow in my homelab is to create a remote docker context like this... (from my local development machine) > docker context create mylinuxserver --docker "host=ssh://revicon@192.168.50.70" Then I can do... > docker context use mylinuxserver > docker compose build > docker compose up -d And all the images contained in my docker-compose.yml file are built, deployed and running in my remote linux server. No fuss, registry, no extra applications needed. Way simpler than using docker swarm, Kubernetes or whatever. Maybe I'm missing something that @psviderski is doing that I don't get with my method. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | matt_kantor 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Assuming I understand your workflow, one difference is that unregistry works with already-built images. They aren't built on the remote host, just pushed there. This means you can be confident that the image on your server is exactly the same as the one you tested locally, and also will typically be much faster (assuming well-structured Dockerfiles with small layers, etc). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | tontony 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Totally valid approach if that works for you, the docker context feature is indeed nice. But if we're talking about hosts that run production-like workloads, using them to perform potentially cpu-/io-intensive build processes might be undesirable. A dedicated build host and context can help mitigate this, but then you again face the challenge of transferring the built images to the production machine, that's where the unregistry approach should help. |