try to enable cross build for arm64 docker image #8015

mis98zb · 2021-10-27T02:41:50Z

If this is non-trivial feature, paste the links/URLs to the design doc.
Update the documentation to include this new feature.
Tests(including UT, IT, E2E) are added to verify the new feature.
If it's UI related, attach the screenshots below.
If this pull request closes/resolves/fixes an existing issue, replace the issue number. Closes #.
Update the CHANGES log.

change base image to adoptopenjdk/openjdk11:jre, to support multiple platforms: linux/amd64 and linux/arm64

change base image to adoptopenjdk/openjdk11:jre to support multiple platforms: linux/amd64 and linux/arm64

prepare for raising pull request

# Conflicts: # Makefile # docker/oap/Dockerfile.oap

wu-sheng · 2021-10-27T02:48:00Z

Could you squash your commits? It seems too many.

@kezhenxu94 @hanahmily @JaredTan95 Could you take a look at this change? I am not familiar with this part of change.

kezhenxu94

This patch seems to be far from ready status, I think this kind of changes can be verified locally, @mis98zb

kezhenxu94 · 2021-10-27T02:56:01Z

.github/workflows/publish-docker.yaml

      - name: Build docker image
        run: |
          make docker || make docker
-          make docker.push || make docker.push


Reminder, this should not be removed

Docker buildx has an option '--push', with it docker will directly push the result docker image to the docker repository.
So as I remove this command.

However, I'm not sure if this version of docker image can be pushed to skywalking's repository.
After getting permission from your side, I'll add the '--push' option.

There are various repositories. Check here, https://github.com/orgs/apache/packages?repo_name=skywalking

Docker buildx has an option '--push', with it docker will directly push the result docker image to the docker repository. So as I remove this command.

Nice, if that's the case, we can remove this command but need to be able to switch the --push option in make command so we can build locally with pushing.

However, I'm not sure if this version of docker image can be pushed to skywalking's repository. After getting permission from your side, I'll add the '--push' option.

Yes we can push this new (arm) Docker images, with some prefixes or suffixes.

Got it.

And FYI, docker buildx does not add prefix or suffix on the tag...
It makes a manifest contains all specified platforms and push it to docker repository, so as one tag contains multiple architecture images.

Just like below:

TAG 11.0.11-jre Last pushed3 months agobydoijanky DIGEST OS/ARCH COMPRESSED SIZE 50029fa89b65 windows/amd64 5.88 GB f416d2a5a8c2 windows/amd64 2.54 GB ccc36e4a72d1 linux/amd64 115.02 MB 2b8329599393 linux/arm64/v8 112.8 MB

You can find this on https://registry.hub.docker.com/_/openjdk?tab=tags&page=1&name=11.0.11-jre

When docker client pull image, it will automatically choose the one with same arch as local.

Is this acceptable for skywalking?
Otherwise I can change to build one platform a time with different tags.
btw, personally I don't prefer this way... :P

Is this only working for arm? Or apply to all x86?

As I used '--platform linux/arm64,linux/amd64', it is working for both x86 and arm64.

If it is needed to separate x86 and arm64, I can change the makefile.

@hanahmily @kezhenxu94 What do you prefer?

I am feeling at least we should separate GHA repo push(x86 only) and release docker repo(x86 and arm) for official release.

Pushing arm Docker images to GHCR may cost some storage but it's convenient if users want to try arm Docker images, I'm OK to separate or not

mis98zb · 2021-10-28T07:30:33Z

pushed to my docker hub repository, (^0^)v

https://hub.docker.com/repository/docker/mis98zb/ui/tags?page=1&ordering=last_updated

both linux/arm64 and linux/amd64 are avalible.

I'll have a simple test on my Raspberry Pi

kezhenxu94 · 2021-10-28T09:05:22Z

Makefile

+ifeq ($(PUSH_DOCKER_IMAGE), true)
+	ifneq (DOCKER_REPOSITORY_TOKEN,)
+		DOCKER_LOGIN_CMD=docker login -u $(DOCKER_REPOSITORY_USER) -p $(DOCKER_REPOSITORY_TOKEN)
+	endif
+	DOCKER_PUSH_OPTION=--push
+	DOCKER_PUSH_CMD=docker push $(HUB)/$(3):$(TAG)
+endif


I personally don't want to have this because login can be EASILY done only once in user's PC and this is kind of out of our scope, also, requiring users to pass a secret into our script is not accepted somehow

Agree. Let's not touch the privacy

yes, you are right.

I add this optional login step is just because it be called by github workflow, which is run on a remote vm and I cannot login manually.
In fact, I wondered why there is no login step previously, and how does docker-publish workflow work...

if needed, I can move the login step to docker-publisher, or any other possible place.

@mis98zb here is how we login in workflow

skywalking/.github/workflows/publish-docker.yaml

Lines 49 to 54 in c9b28e4

- name: Log in to the Container registry

uses: docker/[email protected]

with:

registry: ${{ env.HUB }}

username: ${{ github.actor }}

password: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}

@mis98zb Take this as a reference and remove the login step in our makefile.

ok.

May I know where can I set these variables?
So as I can have a test on my forked repository...

These are available in your GH Action in default.

ok.

May I know where can I set these variables? So as I can have a test on my forked repository...

They are available by default, provided by GitHub Action. the only thing you need to do is to modify these lines to test in your forked repo (ghcr.io/apache/skywalking to ghcr.io/mis98zb/skywalking )

skywalking/.github/workflows/publish-docker.yaml

Line 26 in c9b28e4

HUB: ghcr.io/apache/skywalking

skywalking/.github/workflows/publish-docker.yaml

Line 30 in c9b28e4

if: github.repository == 'apache/skywalking'

got it.
thank you so much!!!

I close this for testing on my forked repository, will reopen soon.

kezhenxu94 · 2021-10-28T09:16:57Z

.github/workflows/publish-docker.yaml

      - name: Build docker image
        run: |
          make docker || make docker
-          make docker.push || make docker.push


Pushing arm Docker images to GHCR may cost some storage but it's convenient if users want to try arm Docker images, I'm OK to separate or not

mis98zb · 2021-10-29T00:27:17Z

docker push is still separated from build.
make docker only run build, and make docker PUSH_DOCKER_IMAGE=true will run build and push.

wu-sheng · 2021-11-02T04:03:23Z

Any update about this PR?

mis98zb · 2021-11-02T06:04:28Z

some E2E test failed with building test docker image (not the oap/ui image).
need more investigation...

btw, the oap/ui images pushed to docker hub can work on my local docker environment...

wu-sheng · 2021-11-02T06:46:56Z

btw, the oap/ui images pushed to docker hub can work on my local docker environment...

Of course it can. What is the issue about this?

mis98zb · 2021-11-02T06:52:04Z

btw, the oap/ui images pushed to docker hub can work on my local docker environment...

Of course it can. What is the issue about this?

hehe, I mean, I've tested the pushed oap/ui images local and they started up without error.

however, E2E failed with biulding test docker image.
not sure if it is due to the base image change...

wu-sheng · 2021-11-02T06:53:44Z

That is the point of e2e. Usually there are some pre-setup in your local env, which makes every steps working well. But running in the e2e env could expose these missing steps.

mis98zb · 2021-11-02T07:25:24Z

E2E.java succeeded meanwhile E2E.js failed.
It's hard to find out why....
maybe need some time to study E2E code...

merge latest code

kezhenxu94 · 2021-11-17T06:23:52Z

Hi @mis98zb , I've opened #8141 to address the review comments and polish the Makefile, can you please take a look?

kezhenxu94 · 2021-11-17T13:27:11Z

Closing in favor of #8141

mis98zb added 20 commits September 15, 2021 19:24

Update publish-docker.yaml

eebbff6

Update publish-docker.yaml

bc2498c

Update publish-docker.yaml

37d4d3a

Update Makefile

7f07758

Update Dockerfile.oap

e8de6a6

change base image to adoptopenjdk/openjdk11:jre, to support multiple platforms: linux/amd64 and linux/arm64

Update Dockerfile.ui

a5567f3

change base image to adoptopenjdk/openjdk11:jre to support multiple platforms: linux/amd64 and linux/arm64

Update publish-docker.yaml

a7bc905

Update Makefile

6f2821c

add info for makefile debugging

dcb2df5

add info for makefile debugging

a035e52

add info for makefile debugging

a6e4a18

better make file

0695d21

correct makefile

d1f8306

change base docker image.

55ffd76

update docker file for oap

057c5ca

update docker file for ui

7c4a471

Update publish-docker.yaml

1e0d080

prepare for raising pull request

Merge branch 'master-apache'

0b2d23a

# Conflicts: # Makefile # docker/oap/Dockerfile.oap

Update publish-docker.yaml

30994ec

Merge branch 'master' into master

a2e0003

wu-sheng added TBD To be decided later, need more discussion or input. backend OAP backend related. docker Docker build scripts or images related labels Oct 27, 2021

kezhenxu94 requested review from JaredTan95, hanahmily and kezhenxu94 and removed request for hanahmily October 27, 2021 02:52

kezhenxu94 reviewed Oct 27, 2021

View reviewed changes

better make file, only login when token is set.

2f713e8

mis98zb reopened this Oct 28, 2021

mis98zb added 2 commits October 28, 2021 15:32

update publish-docker to fit apache repository

f39eb18

Merge branch 'master' into master

9844a31

kezhenxu94 reviewed Oct 28, 2021

View reviewed changes

mis98zb closed this Oct 29, 2021

mis98zb added 3 commits October 29, 2021 14:22

remove login step from makefile

b35e183

enable push to mis98zb ghcr

12be1c9

ghcr tested. change back for apache repository

ad0e00b

mis98zb reopened this Oct 29, 2021

Merge branch 'master' into master

389a349

Merge branch 'master' into master

a3b148b

kezhenxu94 mentioned this pull request Nov 16, 2021

Add cross platform build targets apache/skywalking-cli#129

Merged

mis98zb added 2 commits November 17, 2021 11:16

Merge pull request #2 from apache/master

1169643

merge latest code

change option INCLUDE_ARM_BUILD to CROSS_BUILD

7d9bca4

kezhenxu94 mentioned this pull request Nov 17, 2021

Add Docker images for arm64 architecture #8141

Merged

2 tasks

kezhenxu94 closed this Nov 17, 2021

wu-sheng added this to the 8.9.0 milestone Nov 17, 2021

wu-sheng removed the TBD To be decided later, need more discussion or input. label Nov 17, 2021

mis98zb deleted the master branch November 19, 2021 05:09

	- name: Log in to the Container registry
	uses: docker/[email protected]
	with:
	registry: ${{ env.HUB }}
	username: ${{ github.actor }}
	password: ${{ secrets.GITHUB_TOKEN }}

try to enable cross build for arm64 docker image #8015

try to enable cross build for arm64 docker image #8015

Uh oh!

Conversation

mis98zb commented Oct 27, 2021

Uh oh!

wu-sheng commented Oct 27, 2021

Uh oh!

kezhenxu94 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mis98zb commented Oct 28, 2021

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

kezhenxu94 Oct 29, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mis98zb commented Oct 29, 2021

Uh oh!

wu-sheng commented Nov 2, 2021

Uh oh!

mis98zb commented Nov 2, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

wu-sheng commented Nov 2, 2021

Uh oh!

mis98zb commented Nov 2, 2021

Uh oh!

wu-sheng commented Nov 2, 2021

Uh oh!

mis98zb commented Nov 2, 2021

Uh oh!

kezhenxu94 commented Nov 17, 2021

Uh oh!

kezhenxu94 commented Nov 17, 2021

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

kezhenxu94 Oct 29, 2021 •

edited

Loading

mis98zb commented Nov 2, 2021 •

edited

Loading