Using multi-arch Docker images to support apps on any architecture
1–10 of 41 posts
Re: Using multi-arch Docker images to support apps on any architecture
#2Interesting article but I can’t understand why cross compilation is dismissed.
It could have been improved by some performance benchmarks showing cross compilation performance in comparison with this emulation based solution. I find it hard to believe it makes sense to emulate when native performance is available.
Re: Using multi-arch Docker images to support apps on any architecture
#3I wish there was something like Bazel, Buck, Pants, or Please built on top of docker/crio.
The docker build cache, and dockerizarion of tools, has made building, testing, and deploying software so much simpler. Unfortunately the next step in build systems (in my opinion) still has the mentality that people want to have mutable state on their host systems.
I hope someone extends BuildKit into a system like Bazel. All rules can be executed in containers, all software and deps can be managed in build contexts, you automatically get distributed test runners/builds/cache by talking to multiple docker daemons, etc.
Re: Using multi-arch Docker images to support apps on any architecture
#4Interesting article but I can’t understand why cross compilation is dismissed. It could have been improved by some performance benchmarks showing cross compilation performance in comparison with this emulation based solution. I find it hard to believe it makes sense to emulate when native performance is available.
I have used docker with qemu syscall emulation to build various projects for foreign architectures. I really wanted to cross-compile, but the build tools chosen by those projects made it infeasibly difficult.
Re: Using multi-arch Docker images to support apps on any architecture
#5Interesting article but I can’t understand why cross compilation is dismissed. It could have been improved by some performance benchmarks showing cross compilation performance in comparison with this emulation based solution. I find it hard to believe it makes sense to emulate when native performance is available.
Cross compiling is a lot more difficult to set up. Emulation let's you use much of the target system's tools as is. Cross compiling means you have to build all of those tools for the host system.
For example, with the RaspberryPi I can grab a Raspbain image, add binfmt and qemu on my host and with a few small changes to the image chroot in to a ready made build environment for the Pi that's faster and more convenient than compiling on the Pi. Setting up a cross compile environment for the Pi is much harder.
Docker is totally unnecessary BTW.
Re: Using multi-arch Docker images to support apps on any architecture
#6I wish there was something like Bazel, Buck, Pants, or Please built on top of docker/crio. The docker build cache, and dockerizarion of tools, has made building, testing, and deploying software so much simpler. Unfortunately the next step in build systems (in my opinion) still has the mentality that people want to have mutable state on their host systems. I hope someone extends BuildKit into a system like Bazel. All…
The docker build cache alone feels like magic for long (from scratch) builds. It feels tedious breaking out individual steps but I’ve yet to regret the extra effort.
Re: Using multi-arch Docker images to support apps on any architecture
#7Interesting article but I can’t understand why cross compilation is dismissed. It could have been improved by some performance benchmarks showing cross compilation performance in comparison with this emulation based solution. I find it hard to believe it makes sense to emulate when native performance is available.
Cross compiling is a lot more difficult to set up. Emulation let's you use much of the target system's tools as is. Cross compiling means you have to build all of those tools for the host system. For example, with the RaspberryPi I can grab a Raspbain image, add binfmt and qemu on my host and with a few small changes to the image chroot in to a ready made build environment for the Pi that's faster and more convenient…
Concur. Docker the runtime is unnecessary, but the day I started with Dockerfiles was the day I stopped building my chroots with Makefiles.
Re: Using multi-arch Docker images to support apps on any architecture
#8I wish there was something like Bazel, Buck, Pants, or Please built on top of docker/crio. The docker build cache, and dockerizarion of tools, has made building, testing, and deploying software so much simpler. Unfortunately the next step in build systems (in my opinion) still has the mentality that people want to have mutable state on their host systems. I hope someone extends BuildKit into a system like Bazel. All…
The docker build cache alone feels like magic for long (from scratch) builds. It feels tedious breaking out individual steps but I’ve yet to regret the extra effort.
In other contexts, Cow snapshots such as those provided by LVM or ZFS etc can provide similar effect by naming the snapshot after the hash of the code to execute to build it
Re: Using multi-arch Docker images to support apps on any architecture
#9I've been leveraging docker buildx to create multi architecture images for a few months. It's quite nice and simple, and I've been able to even automate the multiarch builds with GitHub Actions. See an example repo of mine here: https://github.com/jmb12686/docker-cadvisor
Re: Using multi-arch Docker images to support apps on any architecture
#10I've been leveraging docker buildx to create multi architecture images for a few months. It's quite nice and simple, and I've been able to even automate the multiarch builds with GitHub Actions. See an example repo of mine here: https://github.com/jmb12686/docker-cadvisor
Neat! I'd like to get some automated multi-arch image builds going too. I'll give GitHub Actions a go using your repo as reference.