New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Docker doesn't, but should, support 32-bit hosts #136

Closed
chooper opened this Issue Mar 22, 2013 · 17 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
@chooper
Contributor

chooper commented Mar 22, 2013

I know we haven't focused at all on this (and are maybe trying not to), but docker should support 32-bit hosts.

Some extra considerations will have to be made, like the ability to tag (or at least name) images with their supported architectures.

Related to at least #116 and #117 . I'll self-assign since I'm looking at these issues anyhow.

@ghost ghost assigned chooper Mar 22, 2013

@shykes

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@shykes

shykes Mar 22, 2013

Collaborator

Here's what I suggest:

Step 1: docker only supports amd64. It will refuse to start a container on any other architecture.This should be made clear to the user.

Step 2: docker will eventually support more architectures, including i386. This will include arch-specific images, facilities to look them up etc.

So, I will accept anything that makes it easier to support multiple architectures in the future. But for now we're sticking to amd64.

Collaborator

shykes commented Mar 22, 2013

Here's what I suggest:

Step 1: docker only supports amd64. It will refuse to start a container on any other architecture.This should be made clear to the user.

Step 2: docker will eventually support more architectures, including i386. This will include arch-specific images, facilities to look them up etc.

So, I will accept anything that makes it easier to support multiple architectures in the future. But for now we're sticking to amd64.

@shykes

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@shykes

shykes Mar 22, 2013

Collaborator

Enforced in f783759

Collaborator

shykes commented Mar 22, 2013

Enforced in f783759

@shykes shykes closed this Mar 22, 2013

@jrgifford

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jrgifford

jrgifford Mar 27, 2013

Step 2: docker will eventually support more architectures, including i386. This will include arch-specific images, facilities to look them up etc.

So, I will accept anything that makes it easier to support multiple architectures in the future. But for now we're sticking to amd64.

So getting a i686 build would be something you would merge?

jrgifford commented Mar 27, 2013

Step 2: docker will eventually support more architectures, including i386. This will include arch-specific images, facilities to look them up etc.

So, I will accept anything that makes it easier to support multiple architectures in the future. But for now we're sticking to amd64.

So getting a i686 build would be something you would merge?

@bbigras

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@bbigras

bbigras May 31, 2013

Contributor

Shouldn't there be an open issue that we can subscribe to and get notified when it gets implemented?

Contributor

bbigras commented May 31, 2013

Shouldn't there be an open issue that we can subscribe to and get notified when it gets implemented?

@vieux

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@vieux

vieux May 31, 2013

Collaborator

@brunoqc #611

Collaborator

vieux commented May 31, 2013

@brunoqc #611

@stevegt

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@stevegt

stevegt Mar 1, 2014

How should we interpret the closure of this issue? Is the real answer "wontfix", or are there seriously plans to support hosting on 32 bit (and other architectures) someday? If the former, then closing this issue makes sense. If the latter, then leaving this issue open makes sense. Saying that docker will eventually support 32 bit hosts, then closing this issue without first doing so, sends mixed signals at best.

The reference to bug #611 doesn't make sense here either -- #611 is about 32 bit containers, not hosts; not a dup.

For the record: As of today, there still appears to be no supported way to install or build docker on a 32 bit Ubuntu Raring machine.

(1) The instructions at http://docs.docker.io/en/latest/installation/ubuntulinux/ cover 64 bit only, and fail on a 32 bit machine with "E: Unable to locate package lxc-docker".

(2) Following http://docs.docker.io/en/latest/contributing/devenvironment/ to build from source fails, of course, because it depends on an existing installation of docker, which isn't readily available due to (1). Wash, rinse, repeat.

stevegt commented Mar 1, 2014

How should we interpret the closure of this issue? Is the real answer "wontfix", or are there seriously plans to support hosting on 32 bit (and other architectures) someday? If the former, then closing this issue makes sense. If the latter, then leaving this issue open makes sense. Saying that docker will eventually support 32 bit hosts, then closing this issue without first doing so, sends mixed signals at best.

The reference to bug #611 doesn't make sense here either -- #611 is about 32 bit containers, not hosts; not a dup.

For the record: As of today, there still appears to be no supported way to install or build docker on a 32 bit Ubuntu Raring machine.

(1) The instructions at http://docs.docker.io/en/latest/installation/ubuntulinux/ cover 64 bit only, and fail on a 32 bit machine with "E: Unable to locate package lxc-docker".

(2) Following http://docs.docker.io/en/latest/contributing/devenvironment/ to build from source fails, of course, because it depends on an existing installation of docker, which isn't readily available due to (1). Wash, rinse, repeat.

@Em-AK

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@Em-AK

Em-AK commented Mar 25, 2014

@cocowalla

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cocowalla

cocowalla Apr 8, 2014

What's the 'official' word on this? Is official support for running Docker containers on 32-bit systems coming?

cocowalla commented Apr 8, 2014

What's the 'official' word on this? Is official support for running Docker containers on 32-bit systems coming?

@elimisteve

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@elimisteve

elimisteve May 23, 2014

I am also curious about the official word on 32-bit Linux support. Thanks.

elimisteve commented May 23, 2014

I am also curious about the official word on 32-bit Linux support. Thanks.

@andig

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@andig

andig May 26, 2014

I am also curious about the official word on 32-bit Linux support.

me, too

andig commented May 26, 2014

I am also curious about the official word on 32-bit Linux support.

me, too

@crosbymichael

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@crosbymichael

crosbymichael May 27, 2014

Contributor

Supporting this in docker is easy but that hard work is around registry support to make sure that when you run docker pull debian you get the correct image depending on your arch. This is what makes the feature request non-trivial.

Contributor

crosbymichael commented May 27, 2014

Supporting this in docker is easy but that hard work is around registry support to make sure that when you run docker pull debian you get the correct image depending on your arch. This is what makes the feature request non-trivial.

@borfast

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@borfast

borfast Jun 3, 2014

Here's another vote for 32-bit hosts. I have no desire to run a 64-bit operating system, since it chews up much more memory than a 32-bit one (I'm guessing it has to do with pointers taking up 8 bytes instead of 4).

I am also interested in why @shykes refuses to run containers on anything other than amd64. What are the technical limitations or dangers of 32bit for containers? (it's not a rhetorical question, I have no knowledge about the subject and would like to know why)

borfast commented Jun 3, 2014

Here's another vote for 32-bit hosts. I have no desire to run a 64-bit operating system, since it chews up much more memory than a 32-bit one (I'm guessing it has to do with pointers taking up 8 bytes instead of 4).

I am also interested in why @shykes refuses to run containers on anything other than amd64. What are the technical limitations or dangers of 32bit for containers? (it's not a rhetorical question, I have no knowledge about the subject and would like to know why)

@vmarmol

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@vmarmol

vmarmol Jun 3, 2014

Contributor

I think @crosbymichael's post explains the main reasoning. The actual running of the container is not hard, getting the images to be architecture aware is the plumbing that is not present today.

Contributor

vmarmol commented Jun 3, 2014

I think @crosbymichael's post explains the main reasoning. The actual running of the container is not hard, getting the images to be architecture aware is the plumbing that is not present today.

@borfast

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@borfast

borfast Jun 3, 2014

Good point, @vmarmol. Didn't notice that comment, was falling asleep at the keyboard :)

Could someone elaborate on that issue, please?

hard work is around registry support to make sure that when you run docker pull debian you get the correct image depending on your arch

What's that "registry support"?
And why isn't this as simple as naming the images after their architecture, like debian32, ubuntu-amd64, or something similar? (honest question, I think if it were this simple it would have been done already :) )

borfast commented Jun 3, 2014

Good point, @vmarmol. Didn't notice that comment, was falling asleep at the keyboard :)

Could someone elaborate on that issue, please?

hard work is around registry support to make sure that when you run docker pull debian you get the correct image depending on your arch

What's that "registry support"?
And why isn't this as simple as naming the images after their architecture, like debian32, ubuntu-amd64, or something similar? (honest question, I think if it were this simple it would have been done already :) )

@rdsubhas

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@rdsubhas

rdsubhas Jun 11, 2014

+1 to 32 bit support. We're distributing an open source application for humanitarian use in lightweight netbooks. We use LXC because there's no way of running virtual machines in the netbook, and that's why Docker is very interesting to us. If only docker can start supporting 32 bit, we can get rid of all the current manual rpm/deb/lxc packages/snapshots, and simply say docker rules everything!

rdsubhas commented Jun 11, 2014

+1 to 32 bit support. We're distributing an open source application for humanitarian use in lightweight netbooks. We use LXC because there's no way of running virtual machines in the netbook, and that's why Docker is very interesting to us. If only docker can start supporting 32 bit, we can get rid of all the current manual rpm/deb/lxc packages/snapshots, and simply say docker rules everything!

@sportarc

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@sportarc

sportarc Aug 14, 2014

+1 for 32bits support

sportarc commented Aug 14, 2014

+1 for 32bits support

@paramadeep

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@paramadeep

paramadeep Aug 16, 2014

+1 to 32 bit support. Trying to setup sample application with database through docker, as application under test to demonstrate open source testing tools. But we are blocked due to this issue, since most of users will have low end machines only.

paramadeep commented Aug 16, 2014

+1 to 32 bit support. Trying to setup sample application with database through docker, as application under test to demonstrate open source testing tools. But we are blocked due to this issue, since most of users will have low end machines only.

@moby moby locked and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 18, 2014

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.