Pushing out the arm64 images to docker hub?

[deitch]

Are there plans to push out the alternate architecture images to the hub? The Makefile says that the image names are:

• calico/go-build: x86_64
• calico/go-build-arm64: arm64

However, the hub only has the calico/go-build (x86_64) image.

Will you be doing one of:

• Pushing calico/go-build-arm64 out?
• Creating a single multi-arch calico/go-build with a multi-arch manifest?

The docker manifest subcommand hasn't been merged in yet (see this ), but you can use the manifest-tool to do the same thing.

[deitch]

See PR

[djlwilder]

I am also working to add alternate architecture support in Calico, ppc64le in my case.

Adding support for the milti-architecture image manifests definitely needed. However, putting the infrastructure in-place to enable the community to build and support these architectures may be a harder problem to solve. How can we work to solve this?
How can I help contribute to the solution? Is this an appropriate venue for this discussion?

@deitch
@liljenstolpe
@caseydavenport

[liljenstolpe]

Is anyone here aware of a way to get CircleCI to support ARM or PPC? If not, does anyone know a CI pipeline that does support either/both? In worse case, does anyone know a cloud provider of PPC and ARM CPU's (I know about Packet.net's ARM support)?

[deitch]

I am also working to add alternate architecture support in Calico, ppc64le in my case

Great. Happy to work with you @djlwilder, but I believe we both depend on the good team here at Calico/Tigera. I am working only on arm64 and x86_64, but I tried to make any of the PRs I have done (3 so far, more will come once those are in) generic, especially since much of the build toolset referenced ppc64ie. I will cc you on those PRs, see if I made any errors that cause issues for ppc64ie?

Adding support for the milti-architecture image manifests definitely needed

100%. I do a lot of work with LinuxKit, we use multi-arch manifests there exclusively.

I would like to request that we first get them working on multiple architectures, then multi-arch manifests, in a 2 stage process? I am concerned that if we do it all at once, it will hold things up?

putting the infrastructure in-place to enable the community to build and support these architectures

It is. To the best of my knowledge, no CI-as-a-service (is that a real term?) supports anything other than x86_64. However, I have heard reports that a number of them are working towards getting arm64 in place (probably through packet, since they are the only arm64 cloud provider out there to the best of my knowledge).

Is anyone here aware of a way to get CircleCI to support ARM or PPC?

@liljenstolpe , do you have any connections to CircleCI? Or just using them a bit as a customer? We both know the Packet team pretty well, I am sure they would be happy to have a conversation.

[liljenstolpe]

No, I don't unfortunately.

[djlwilder]

@liljenstolpe IBM had provided other open source projects with ppc VMs for Ci. That might be an option for Calico. However, I don't believe CircleCi has a ppc port, Jenkins is typically used in these cases. Would Calico consider switching to Jenkins? Although this wont solve the issue with arm64.

[deitch]

I don't believe CircleCi has a ppc port

They don't have arm64 either, unfortunately. No one does. I think it would be a competitive advantage in an increasingly tight CIaaS space.

Would Calico consider switching to Jenkins?

The challenge with Jenkins is you have to run it and manage it. That is why Circle/Travis/etc. are so popular. Who wants to manage (and pay to keep up all the time) a bunch of VMs?

[hazzim]

I can help to manage and maintain a Jenkins server (if you get some kind of sponsorship for one), I have 3 years of experience, and I'm in Mexico, so my help could be in Central time most of the time.

[deitch]

I can help to manage and maintain a Jenkins server (if you get some kind of sponsorship for one)

It is a pity, though. I doubt Tigera pays anything for CI, since most CIaaS are free for open source projects... but no CI (yet) supports anything other than x86_64.

[ahrkrak]

Interesting idea here to run ARM CI using QEMU... https://www.tomaz.me/2013/12/02/running-travis-ci-tests-on-arm.html

[deitch]

It is an interesting idea, if painfully slow. But better than nothing?

[liljenstolpe]

Here's a more current version of what @ahrkrak mentioned: https://blog.hypriot.com/post/setup-simple-ci-pipeline-for-arm-images/

[deitch]

Got to be slow, but better than not having it.

So where do we want to take it from here?

[liljenstolpe]

We need to talk internally.