> I'm curious why you implemented your own registry for this

Answering my own question: I think it's because you want to avoid the `docker pull` side of the equation (when possible) by having the registry's backing storage be the same as the engine's on the remote host.

▲

psviderski 6 months ago | parent [-]

Exactly, although my main motivation was to reduce the distinction between docker engine and docker registry. To make it possible for a user to push/pull to the docker daemon as if it was a registry, hence a registry wrapper.

This is a prerequisite for what I want to build for uncloud, a clustering solution I’m developing. I want to make it possible to push an image to a cluster (store it right in the docker on one or multiple machines) and then run it on any machine in the cluster (pull from a machine that has the image if missing locally) eliminating a registry middleman.

	▲	matt_kantor 6 months ago \| parent [-]
		Very cool. As others have said: "push/pull to the docker daemon as if it was a registry" is how docker should always have worked. This is next level but I can imagine distributing resource usage across the cluster by pulling different layers from different peers concurrently.