RE: [DISCUSS] ARM Support for Pulsar 2.11 Docker Image

[Alexander Preuss <al...@streamnative.io.INVALID>]

Hi Michael,

Thank you for bringing up this topic.
I was just running into an issue that prevented me from using the standard
Pulsar image in Testcontainers and found this discussion.

In my opinion, refactoring the docker builds to allow us to use the ASF
infra is a great idea.
I'm also looping in Kay, as she might be able to provide more insights.

Best,
Alex

On 2022/07/09 07:18:31 Michael Marshall wrote:
> Hi Pulsar Community,
>
> I would like to see the 2.11 docker image ship with support to run on
> ARM architecture. The issue asking for this feature [0] has had a lot
> of traction.
>
> The Bookkeeper 4.15 upgrade was the last blocker, and since we
> upgraded to BK 4.15 in May, we should be able to upgrade the docker
> build to make it a multi-arch build.
>
> kezhenxu94 opened a PR [1] to upgrade our build process to include a
> multi-arch docker image build, but he is unable to finish the PR and
> has asked for someone else to pick up the work.
>
> Before we continue the work, does anyone have strong opinions on how
> we should update our docker image build? Dave indicated on a separate
> thread that we should revisit where the docker images are hosted, and
> Enrico indicated on the PR [2] that we might want to consider
> automating our docker image build so that the ASF Infra Docker hub bot
> builds our images. Once we have consensus on these topics, it should
> be straightforward to update the docker build process for the
> multi-arch build.
>
> In my opinion, we need to support a manual build option to be used by
> the integration tests (and probably by some users building modified
> versions of Pulsar). I also think it could be very convenient to have
> our image built by the ASF bot and hosted in the apache docker hub
> repo.
>
> Let me know what you think.
>
> Thanks,
> Michael
>
> [0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/12944
> [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14005
> [2]
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14005#pullrequestreview-913331330
>

Re: [DISCUSS] ARM Support for Pulsar 2.11 Docker Image

[Michael Marshall <mm...@apache.org>]

I see there was some recent activity on
https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/12944, but I don't know of any
other progress.

I won't be able to work on this in the near future, but I'll be happy
to help review any PRs related to it.

Thanks,
Michael

On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 8:05 AM Asaf Mesika <as...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What ended up for this?
>
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 11:11 AM Alexander Preuss
> <al...@streamnative.io.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Hi Michael,
> >
> > Thank you for bringing up this topic.
> > I was just running into an issue that prevented me from using the standard
> > Pulsar image in Testcontainers and found this discussion.
> >
> > In my opinion, refactoring the docker builds to allow us to use the ASF
> > infra is a great idea.
> > I'm also looping in Kay, as she might be able to provide more insights.
> >
> > Best,
> > Alex
> >
> > On 2022/07/09 07:18:31 Michael Marshall wrote:
> > > Hi Pulsar Community,
> > >
> > > I would like to see the 2.11 docker image ship with support to run on
> > > ARM architecture. The issue asking for this feature [0] has had a lot
> > > of traction.
> > >
> > > The Bookkeeper 4.15 upgrade was the last blocker, and since we
> > > upgraded to BK 4.15 in May, we should be able to upgrade the docker
> > > build to make it a multi-arch build.
> > >
> > > kezhenxu94 opened a PR [1] to upgrade our build process to include a
> > > multi-arch docker image build, but he is unable to finish the PR and
> > > has asked for someone else to pick up the work.
> > >
> > > Before we continue the work, does anyone have strong opinions on how
> > > we should update our docker image build? Dave indicated on a separate
> > > thread that we should revisit where the docker images are hosted, and
> > > Enrico indicated on the PR [2] that we might want to consider
> > > automating our docker image build so that the ASF Infra Docker hub bot
> > > builds our images. Once we have consensus on these topics, it should
> > > be straightforward to update the docker build process for the
> > > multi-arch build.
> > >
> > > In my opinion, we need to support a manual build option to be used by
> > > the integration tests (and probably by some users building modified
> > > versions of Pulsar). I also think it could be very convenient to have
> > > our image built by the ASF bot and hosted in the apache docker hub
> > > repo.
> > >
> > > Let me know what you think.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Michael
> > >
> > > [0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/12944
> > > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14005
> > > [2]
> > https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14005#pullrequestreview-913331330
> > >
> >

Re: [DISCUSS] ARM Support for Pulsar 2.11 Docker Image

[Asaf Mesika <as...@gmail.com>]

What ended up for this?

On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 11:11 AM Alexander Preuss
<al...@streamnative.io.invalid> wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> Thank you for bringing up this topic.
> I was just running into an issue that prevented me from using the standard
> Pulsar image in Testcontainers and found this discussion.
>
> In my opinion, refactoring the docker builds to allow us to use the ASF
> infra is a great idea.
> I'm also looping in Kay, as she might be able to provide more insights.
>
> Best,
> Alex
>
> On 2022/07/09 07:18:31 Michael Marshall wrote:
> > Hi Pulsar Community,
> >
> > I would like to see the 2.11 docker image ship with support to run on
> > ARM architecture. The issue asking for this feature [0] has had a lot
> > of traction.
> >
> > The Bookkeeper 4.15 upgrade was the last blocker, and since we
> > upgraded to BK 4.15 in May, we should be able to upgrade the docker
> > build to make it a multi-arch build.
> >
> > kezhenxu94 opened a PR [1] to upgrade our build process to include a
> > multi-arch docker image build, but he is unable to finish the PR and
> > has asked for someone else to pick up the work.
> >
> > Before we continue the work, does anyone have strong opinions on how
> > we should update our docker image build? Dave indicated on a separate
> > thread that we should revisit where the docker images are hosted, and
> > Enrico indicated on the PR [2] that we might want to consider
> > automating our docker image build so that the ASF Infra Docker hub bot
> > builds our images. Once we have consensus on these topics, it should
> > be straightforward to update the docker build process for the
> > multi-arch build.
> >
> > In my opinion, we need to support a manual build option to be used by
> > the integration tests (and probably by some users building modified
> > versions of Pulsar). I also think it could be very convenient to have
> > our image built by the ASF bot and hosted in the apache docker hub
> > repo.
> >
> > Let me know what you think.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Michael
> >
> > [0] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/issues/12944
> > [1] https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14005
> > [2]
> https://github.com/apache/pulsar/pull/14005#pullrequestreview-913331330
> >
>