[HN Gopher] Docker Systems Status: Full Service Disruption
___________________________________________________________________
Docker Systems Status: Full Service Disruption
Author : l2dy
Score : 320 points
Date : 2025-10-20 07:31 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.dockerstatus.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.dockerstatus.com)
| atymic wrote:
| Result of AWS outage
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45640754
| reader_1000 wrote:
| > We have identified the underlying issue with one of our cloud
| service providers.
|
| Isn't it everyone using multiple cloud providers nowadays? Why
| are they affected by single cloud provider outage?
| postexitus wrote:
| Not only they are not using multiple cloud providers, they
| are not using multiple cloud locations.
| lvncelot wrote:
| I think more often than not, companies are using a single
| cloud provider, and even when multiple are used, it's either
| different projects with different legacy decisions or a
| conscious migration.
|
| True multi-tenancy is not only very rare, it's an absolute
| pain to manage as soon as people start using any vendor-
| specific functionality.
| dijit wrote:
| > as soon as people start using any vendor-specific
| functionality
|
| It's also true in circumstances where things have the same
| name but act differently.
|
| You'd be forgiven for believing that AWS IAM and GCP IAM
| are the same thing for example, but in GCP an IAM Role is
| simply a list of permissions that you can attach to an
| identity. In AWS an IAM Role is the identity _itself_.
|
| Other examples; if you're coming from GCP, you'd be
| forgiven for thinking that Networks are regional in AWS,
| which will be annoying to fix later when you realise you
| need to create peering connections.
|
| Oh and while default firewall rules are stateful on both,
| if you dive into more advanced network security, the way
| rules are applied and processed can have subtle
| differences. The inherent global nature of the GCP VPC
| means firewall rules, by default, apply across all regions
| within that VPC, which requires a different mindset than
| AWS where rules are scoped more tightly to the
| region/subnet.
|
| There's like, hundreds of these little details.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Sounds like we've walked a similar path on this.
| Especially with IAM and network policies.
|
| > There's like hundreds of these little issues
|
| Exactly. If it is a handful of things that is fine. It's
| often as you describe.
| OtherShrezzing wrote:
| I think there's some irony in Docker being impacted
| specifically, as they're one of the main tools to help
| achieve true multi-tenancy.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Depends on if you're using Docker or Podman Desktop
| versus straight Docker/Podman and where you're pulling
| your images from.
| ikiris wrote:
| Multi cloud is just a way to have the outages of both.
| brookst wrote:
| And even if you think it's important enough to justify the
| expense and complexity, it's times like this when you
| discover some minor utility service 1) is a critical
| dependency, and 2) is not multi-cloud.
|
| Complex systems are hard.
| rcxdude wrote:
| Because it's hard enough to distribute a service across
| multiple machines in the same DC, let alone across multiple
| DCs and multiple providers.
| nobleach wrote:
| Looking at the landscape around me, no. Everyone is in crisis
| cost-cutting, "gotta show that same growth the C-suite saw
| during Covid" mode. So being multi-provider, and even in some
| cases, being multi-regional, is now off the table. It's sad
| because the product really suffers. But hey, "growth".
| madisp wrote:
| they are using multiple cloud providers, but judging by the
| cloudflare r2 outage affecting them earlier this year I guess
| all of them are on the critical path?
| roywiggins wrote:
| You can be multi-cloud in the sense that you aren't dependent
| on any single provider, or in the sense that you are
| dependent on all of them.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| A bit like the ambiguity of search facets: if I select one
| facet, I get results that match, but if I add a second
| facet, should the results expand (OR'ing my selections) or
| contract (AND'ing my selections)? Presumably they should be
| OR'd if they belong to the same category (like selecting
| multiple colors, if any given result has only one color)
| but AND'd otherwise (like selecting a color and a size).
| But then a category could consist of miscellaneous
| features, and I want results that have every feature I've
| selected, which goes against the general case.
| jelder wrote:
| No, that's pretty rare, and generally means you can't count
| on any features more sophisticated than VMs and object
| storage.
|
| On the other hand, it's pretty embarrassing at this point for
| something as fundamental as Docker to be in a single region.
| Most cloud providers make inter-region failover reasonably
| achievable.
| richardwhiuk wrote:
| Almost all cloud providers help here by having inter-region
| failures as well.
|
| There are multiple AWS services which are "global" in the
| sense that they are entirely hosted out of AWS East 1
| wredcoll wrote:
| > Isn't it everyone using multiple cloud providers nowadays?
| Why are they affected by single cloud provider outage?
|
| No? I very much doubt _anyone_ is doing that.
| DiggyJohnson wrote:
| Multi cloud is not nearly as trivial as often implied to
| implement for real world complex projects. Things get
| challenging the second your application steps off the happy
| path
| walkabout wrote:
| > Isn't it everyone using multiple cloud providers nowadays?
|
| Oh yes. All of them, in fact, especially if you count what
| key vendors host on.
|
| > Why are they affected by single cloud provider outage?
|
| Every workload is only on one cloud. Nb this doesn't mean
| every _workflow_ is on only one cloud. Important distinction
| since that would be more stable.
| pmontra wrote:
| Because even if service A is using multiple cloud providers
| not all the external services they use are doing the same
| thing, especially the smallest one or the cheapest ones. At
| least one of them is on AWS East-1, fails and degrades
| service A or takes it down.
|
| Being multi-cloud does not come for free: time, engineers,
| knowledge and ultimately money.
| danvesma wrote:
| ...well this explains a lot about how my morning is going...
| KronisLV wrote:
| I guess people who are running their own registries like Nexus
| and build their own container images from a common base image are
| feeling at least a bit more secure in their choice right now.
|
| Wonder how many builds or redeployments this will break.
| Personally, nothing against Docker or Docker Hub of course, I
| find them to be useful.
| frenkel wrote:
| Only if they get their base images from somewhere else...
| bravetraveler wrote:
| Pull-through caches are still useful even when the upstream
| is down... assuming the image(s) were pulled recently. The
| HEAD to upstream will obviously fail _[when checking
| currency]_ , but the software is happy to serve what it has
| already pulled.
|
| Depends on the implementation, of course: I'm speaking to _'
| distribution/distribution'_, the reference. Harbor or
| whatever else may behave differently, I have no idea.
| Sphax wrote:
| We run Harbor and mirror every base image using its Proxy Cache
| feature, it's quite nice. We've had this setup for years now
| and while it works fine, Harbor has some rough edges.
| thephyber wrote:
| I came here to mention that any non-trivial company depending
| on Docker images should look into a local proxy cache. It's
| too much infra for a solo developer / tiny organization, but
| is a good hedge against DockerHub, GitHub repo, etc downtime
| and can run faster (less ingress transfer) if located in the
| same region as the rest of your infra.
| jsmeaton wrote:
| Guess where we host nexus..
| nusl wrote:
| Currently unable to do much of anything new in dev/prod
| environments without manual workarounds. I'd imagine the impact
| is pretty massive.
|
| Asside; seems Signal is also having issues. Damn.
| cebert wrote:
| I'm not sure that the impact will be that big. Most
| organizations have their own mirrors for artifacts.
| VenturingVole wrote:
| From what I've seen: I highly doubt it.
|
| Edit to add: This might spur on a few more to start doing
| that, but people are quick to forget/prioritise other
| areas. If this keeps happening then it will change.
| nusl wrote:
| Yeah, perhaps. I don't know how many folks host mirrors.
| Most places I've worked for didn't, though this is
| anecdotal.
| phillebaba wrote:
| I would say most people would say it't best practice
| while a minority actually does it.
| CaptainOfCoit wrote:
| Seems related to size and/or maturity if anything. I
| haven't seen any startups less than five year old doing
| anything like that, but I also haven't seen any huge
| enterprise _not_ doing that, YMMV.
| walkabout wrote:
| "Their own" can and often does mean something hosted on a
| major cloud provider (whether they manage it in-house or
| pay a vendor for their system)
| ai-onehealth wrote:
| Yes I noticed Signal being down too
| tom1337 wrote:
| We are using base images but unfortunately some github actions
| are pulling docker images in their prepare phase - so while my
| application would build, I cannot deploy it because the CI/CD
| depends on dockerhub and you cannot change where these images
| are pulled from (so they cannot go through a pull-through
| cache)...
| roryirvine wrote:
| My advice: document the issue, and use it to help justify
| spending time on removing those vestigial dependencies on
| Docker asap.
|
| It's not just about reducing your exposure to third parties
| who you (presumably) don't have a contract with, it's also
| good mitigation against potential supply chain attacks -
| especially if you go as far as building the base images from
| scratch.
| tom1337 wrote:
| Yea we have thought about that - I also want to remove most
| dependencies on externally imported actions on GitHub CI
| and probably just go back to simple bash scripts. Our
| actions are not that complicated and there is little
| benefit in using some external action to run ESLint than
| just run the command inside the action directly. Saves time
| and reduces dependencies - just need to get time to do
| that...
| enigmo wrote:
| mirrors can be configured in dockerd or buildkit. if you can
| update the config (might need a self-hosted runner?) it's a
| quick fix - see https://cloud.google.com/artifact-
| registry/docs/pull-cached-... for an example. aws and azure
| are similar.
| tom1337 wrote:
| Hmm yea with a self hosted runner this could work. Gotta
| need to set the dockerd config into the VM before the
| runner starts I assume - unfortunately GitHub itself does
| not allow to change anything for the prepare stage - and
| it's a known issue for 2 years at least...
|
| https://github.com/actions/runner-
| images/issues/1445#issueco...
| https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/76636
| yandie wrote:
| It's actually an important practice to have a docker image
| cache in the middle. You never know if an upstream image is
| purged randomly from docker, and your K8s node gets replaced,
| and now can't pull the base image for your service.
|
| Just engineering hygiene IMO.
| yread wrote:
| That is nothing compared to how good i feel about not using
| containers at all.
| ic4l wrote:
| This broke our builds since we rely on several public Docker
| images, and by default, Docker uses docker.io.
|
| Thankfully, AWS provides a docker.io mirror for those who can't
| wait: FROM
| public.ecr.aws/docker/library/{image_name}
|
| In the error logs, the issue was mostly related to the
| authentication endpoint:
|
| # https://auth.docker.io - "No server is available to handle this
| request"
|
| After switching to the AWS mirror, everything built successfully
| without any issues.
| firloop wrote:
| I wasn't able to get this working, but I was able to use
| Google's mirror[0] just fine.
|
| Just had to change FROM {image_name}
|
| to FROM mirror.gcr.io/{image_name}
|
| Hope this helps!
|
| [0]: https://cloud.google.com/artifact-registry/docs/pull-
| cached-...
| ic4l wrote:
| We tried this initially FROM
| mirror.gcr.io/{image_name}
|
| We received failed to resolve source metadata
| for mirror.gcr.io/
|
| So it looks like these services may not be true mirrors, and
| just functioning as a library proxy with a cache.
|
| If you're image is not cached on one of these then you may be
| SOL.
| da768 wrote:
| During the last Docker Hub outage we found Google mirrors
| lost all image tags after a while. Image digest references
| would probably work
| CamouflagedKiwi wrote:
| Mild irony that Docker is down because of the AWS outage, but
| the AWS mirror repos are still running...
| geostyx wrote:
| public.ecr.aws was failing for me earlier with 5XX errors due
| to the AWS outage:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45640754
| kerblang wrote:
| Also, docker.io is rate-limited, so if your organization
| experiences enough growth you will start seeing build failures
| on a regular basis.
|
| Also, quay.io - another image hoster, from red hat - has been
| read-only all day today.
|
| If you're going to have docker/container image dependencies
| it's best to establish a solid hosting solution instead of
| riding whatever bus shows up
| anon7000 wrote:
| I manage a large build system and pulling from ECR has been
| flaking all day
| jdthedisciple wrote:
| So thus far today outages are reported from
|
| - AWS
|
| - Vercel
|
| - Atlassian
|
| - Cloudflare
|
| - Docker
|
| - Google (see downdetector)
|
| - Microsoft (see downdetector)
|
| What's going on?
| ta1243 wrote:
| Or they all rely on AWS, because over the last 15 years we've
| built an extremely fragile interconnected global system in the
| pursuit of profit, austerity, and efficiency
| benrutter wrote:
| Wait, Google and Microsoft rely on AWS? That seems unlikely?
| (does it? I wouldn't really know to be honest)
| ta1243 wrote:
| More likely the outage reports for google and microsoft are
| based around systems which also include aws
| ssl-3 wrote:
| In terms of user reports: Some users don't know what the
| hell is going on. This is a constant.
|
| For instance: When there's a widespread Verizon cellular
| outage, sites like downdetector will show a spike in
| Verizon reports.
|
| But such sites will also show a spike in AT&T and T-Mobile
| reports. Even though those latter networks are completely
| unaffected by Verizon's back-end issues, the graphs of user
| reports are consistently shaped the same for all 3
| carriers.
|
| This is just because some of the users doing the reporting
| have no clue.
|
| So when the observation is "AWS is in outage and _people_
| are reporting issues at Google, and Microsoft, " then the
| last two are often just factors of people being people and
| reporting the wrong thing.
|
| (You're hanging out on HN, so there's very good certainty
| that you know what precisely what cell carrier you're using
| and also can discern the difference betwixt an Amazon, a
| Google, and a Microsoft. But lots of other people are not
| particularly adept at making these distinctions. It's
| normal and expected for some of them to be this way at all
| times.)
| tpetry wrote:
| Thats true. And big part of the reason is the user's
| browser. They use Microsoft Edge or Google Chrome and
| can't open a page and there are weird error messages? oh,
| thats probably a Google issue...
| CrayKhoi wrote:
| They might be using third party services that rely on AWS.
| thephyber wrote:
| It's very likely they've bought companies that were built
| on AWS and haven't migrated to use their homegrown cloud
| platforms.
| throw-10-13 wrote:
| dns outage at aws exposing how overly centralized our infra is
| cluckindan wrote:
| The new left-pad
| d4rkp4ttern wrote:
| Reddit appears to be only semi operational. Frequent "rate
| limit" errors and empty pares while just browsing. Not sure if
| related
| sschueller wrote:
| What are good proxy/mirror solutions to mitigate such issues?
| Best would be an all in one solution that for example also
| handles nodejs, packigist etc.
| bravetraveler wrote:
| Pulp is a popular project for _' one stop shop'_, I believe.
| Personally, always used project-specific solutions like _'
| distribution/distribution'_ for containers from the CNCF. This
| allows for pull-through caching with relatively little setup
| work.
| conradfr wrote:
| Is there a built-in way to bypass the request to the registry if
| your base layers are cached?
| edoceo wrote:
| pull: never?
| wolfgangbabad wrote:
| even reddit throws a lot of 503s when adding/editing comments
| throw-10-13 wrote:
| reddit is always going down, thats the least surprising thing
| about this
| wolfgangbabad wrote:
| https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c5y8k7k6v1rt
| dd_xplore wrote:
| Does it decrease the AWS's nine 9s ?
| speedgoose wrote:
| The marketing department did the maths and they said no.
| nobleach wrote:
| "MOST of the time" we're nine 9s.
| helpfulmandrill wrote:
| I wonder if this is why I also can't log in to O'Reilly to do
| some "Docker is down, better find something to do" training...
| p0w3n3d wrote:
| Just install a pull-through proxy that will store all the
| packages recently used.
| phillebaba wrote:
| Shameless plug but this might be a good time to install Spegel in
| your Kubernetes clusters if you have critical dependencies on
| Docker Hub.
|
| https://spegel.dev/
| CaptainOfCoit wrote:
| There is a couple of alternatives that mirrors more than just
| Docker Hub too, most of them pretty bloated and enterprisey,
| but they do what they say on the tin and saved me more than
| once. Artifactory, Nexus Repository, Cloudsmith and ProGet are
| some of them.
| phillebaba wrote:
| Spegel does not only mirror Docker Hub, and works a lot
| differently than the alternatives you suggested. Instead of
| being yet another failure point closer to your production
| environment, it runs a distributed stateless registry inside
| of your Kubernetes cluster. By piggy backing off of
| Containerds image store it will distribute already pulled
| images inside of the cluster.
| CaptainOfCoit wrote:
| I'll be honest and say I hadn't heard of Spegel before, and
| just read the landing page which says "Speed up container
| pulls and minimize downtime with a stateless peer-to-peer
| OCI registry mirror for efficient image distribution", so
| it isn't exactly clear you can use it for more things than
| container images.
| osivertsson wrote:
| If it really is fully open-source please make that more visible
| on your landing page.
|
| It is a huge deal if I can start investigating and deploying
| such a solution as a techie right away, compared to having to
| go through all the internal hoops for a software purchase.
| mocko wrote:
| After some digging - https://github.com/spegel-
| org/spegel/blob/main/LICENSE says MIT
| CaptainOfCoit wrote:
| How hard is it to go to the GitHub repository and open the
| LICENSE file that is in almost every repository? Would have
| taken you less time than writing that comment, and showed you
| it's under MIT.
| rplnt wrote:
| It's not entirely uncommon to only have parts of the
| solution open. So a license on one repo might not be the
| whole story and looking further would take more time than
| giving a good suggestion to the author.
| giobox wrote:
| Agreed. For all the people arguing "just click the link
| and the license is there!!", I have been burned several
| times before where a technical solution has a prominent
| open permissive license github repo (MIT or similar etc)
| based component as its primary home, only to discover
| later on that essential parts of the system are in other
| less permissive or private repos behind subscriptions or
| fees.
| CaptainOfCoit wrote:
| The rest of us get around that particular issue by going
| through the source code and all the tradeoffs _before_ we
| download, include and adopt a dependency, not after.
| giobox wrote:
| Good for you! This of course doesn't help in the
| situation where a dependency author retroactively changes
| the licensing state of a component, or reconfigures the
| project to rely on a new external dependency with
| differing license states (experienced both of these
| too!).
|
| Having the landing page explain the motivations of the
| authors vis-a-vis open source goes a long way to
| providing the context for whatever licensing is appearing
| in the source repos, and helps understand what the future
| steer for the project is likely to be.
|
| There are _loads_ of ostensibly open source projects out
| there whose real goal is to drive sales of associated
| software and services, often without which the value of
| the opensource components is reduced, especially in the
| developer tooling space.
| CaptainOfCoit wrote:
| > Good for you! This of course doesn't help in the
| situation where a dependency author retroactively changes
| the licensing state of a component, or reconfigures the
| project to rely on a new external dependency with
| differing license states (experienced both of these
| too!).
|
| No, but I also don't see why that matters a lot. Once you
| adopted a third party project as a dependency, you also
| implicitly sign up to whatever changes they do, or you
| get prepared for staying on a static version with only
| security fixes you apply yourself. This isn't exactly new
| problems nor rocket science, we've been dealing with
| these sort of things for decades already.
|
| > There are loads of ostensibly open source projects out
| there whose real goal is to drive sales of associated
| software and services, often without which the value of
| the opensource components is reduced, especially in the
| developer tooling space.
|
| Yeah, which is kind of terrible, but also kind of great.
| But in the end, ends up being fairly easy to detect one
| way or another, with the biggest and reddest signal being
| VC funded with no public pricing.
| kelvinjps10 wrote:
| Also it's good feedback for the developer of this solution
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| If I have to dig through your website/documentation to find
| basic information we're not getting off to a great start.
| It's pretty common for open source projects to proudly
| proclaim they are open source from the get-go. "____ is an
| open source tool for ______." Simple as that
| CaptainOfCoit wrote:
| Today's kids are way too lazy.
| BolexNOLA wrote:
| Seriously all the nitpicking I see of any project people
| post here but "tell us you're open source at the top when
| you're open source" means we're lazy? Being open source
| is an important decision and you should tell people! It's
| a good thing!
|
| Isn't a big part of getting a project out there actually
| letting people know what it is? Especially if you're
| trying to give a tool to the open source-valuing
| community. That's a high priority for them. That's like
| having a vegan menu and not saying you're a vegan
| restaurant anywhere public facing.
| CaptainOfCoit wrote:
| I agree it's a good thing, but I'd also agree it's not
| something you need/have to shove in people's faces,
| especially when it's literally one click away to find out
| (The GitHub icon in the top right takes you to the
| repository, and you don't even have to scroll or click
| anything, the sidebar shows "MIT License" for you).
| surajrmal wrote:
| There is a GitHub icon fairly prominent on the top right.
| Choosing to spend precious text for a fleeting would be
| user on it is a choice and not everyone wants to market
| that fact very prominently. Should everyone who writes
| their project in rust include that prominently as well?
| It seemingly markets very well and a lot of people seem
| to care about that as well.
| E39M5S62 wrote:
| https://spegel.dev/project/community/
| storm1er wrote:
| What's the difference with kuik? Spegel seems too complicated
| for my homelab, but could be a nice upgrade for my company
|
| Kuik: https://github.com/enix/kube-image-keeper?tab=readme-ov-
| file...
| phillebaba wrote:
| It's been a while since I looked at kuik, but I would say the
| main difference is that Spegel doesn't do any of the pulling
| or storage of images. Instead it relies on Containerd to do
| it for you. This also means that Spegel does not have to
| manage garbage collection. The nice thing with this is that
| it doesn't change how images are initially pulled from
| upstream and is able to serve images that exist on the node
| before Spegel runs.
|
| Also it looks kuik uses CRDs to store information about where
| images are cached, while Spegel uses its own p2p solution to
| do the routing of traffic between nodes.
|
| If you are running k3s in your homelab you can enable Spegel
| with a flag as it is an embedded feature.
| mike-cardwell wrote:
| This looks good, but we're using GKE and it looks like it only
| works there with some hacks. Is there a timeline to make it
| work with GKE properly?
| phillebaba wrote:
| I am having some discussions about getting things working on
| GKE but I can't give an ETA as it really depends on how
| things align with deployment schedules. I am positive however
| that this will soon be resolved.
| mike-cardwell wrote:
| Thanks. I will keep an eye on your project as it looks
| great and something we would definitely benefit from.
|
| P.S. Your blog could do with an rss feed ;). I will track
| https://github.com/spegel-org/spegel/releases.atom for now
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| Google Cloud has its own cache of Docker Hub that you can use
| for free, AWS does as well
| Zekio wrote:
| what good options are there for container registry proxies /
| caches to protect against something like this?
| phillebaba wrote:
| I build Spegel to keep my Kubernetes cluster running smoothly
| during an outage like this. https://spegel.dev/
| PhilipRoman wrote:
| https://docs.docker.com/docker-hub/image-library/mirror/ ?
| l2dy wrote:
| Recovering as of October 20, 2025 09:43 UTC
|
| > [Monitoring] We are seeing error rates recovering across our
| SaaS services. We continue to monitor as we process our backlog.
| darkamaul wrote:
| For other people impacted, what helped me this morning was to use
| the `ghcr`, albeit this is not a one-to-one replacement.
|
| Ex: `docker pull ghcr.io/linuxcontainers/debian-slim:latest`
| TimWolla wrote:
| That image is over one year old:
| https://github.com/linuxcontainers/debian-slim/pkgs/containe...
|
| Google Container Registry provides a pull-through mirror,
| though, just prefix `mirror.gcr.io` and use `library` as the
| user for the Docker Official Images. For example
| `mirror.gcr.io/library/redis` for
| https://hub.docker.com/_/redis.
| remram wrote:
| Is there a way to configure alternate mirrors in containerd?
| jabiko wrote:
| Its impressive that even though registry-1.docker.io returned 503
| errors they where able to keep a the metric "Docker Registry
| Uptime" at 100%.
| lbruder wrote:
| Well, the server _was_ up, it was just returning HTTP 503...
| cloudking wrote:
| I'm fairly new to Docker. Do folks really rely on public images
| and registries for production systems? Seems like a brittle
| strategy.
| edoceo wrote:
| Yes, 1000s of orgs. Larger players might use a pull-through-
| cache - but it's not as common as it should be. Similar issue
| for other software-supply-chain (NPM, pyPi, etc)
| theanonymousone wrote:
| It's quite funny/interesting that this is higher in HN front page
| than the news of the AWS outage that caused it.
| mcintyre1994 wrote:
| Not on the real secret front page!
| https://news.ycombinator.com/active :)
| pknopf wrote:
| What does the "active" page sort by?
| mcintyre1994 wrote:
| According to https://news.ycombinator.com/lists it's "Most
| active current discussions"
|
| I find that it better surfaces the best discussion when
| there are multiple threads (like in this example), and it
| keeps showing slightly older threads for longer when
| there's still discussion happening.
| cakeday wrote:
| That's informative, I wasn't aware of that way to view HN,
| thanks.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| The internet was designed to be fault tolerant and distributed
| from the beginning and we still ended up with a handful of mega
| hosts.
| gjvc wrote:
| mirror.gcr.io is your friend
| tj_591 wrote:
| Hi all, Tushar from Docker here. We're sorry about the impact our
| current outage is having on many of you. Yes, this is related to
| the ongoing AWS incident and we're working closely with AWS on
| getting our services restored. We'll provide regular updates on
| dockerstatus.com .
|
| We know how critical Docker Hub and services are to millions of
| developers, and we're sorry for the pain this is causing. Thank
| you for your patience as we work to resolve this incident. We'll
| publish a post-mortem in the next few days once this incident is
| fully resolved and we have a remediation plan.
| tonyabracadabra wrote:
| pls bring it back
| m463 wrote:
| this is by design
|
| docker got requests to allow you to configure a private registry,
| but they selfishly denied the ability to do that:
|
| https://stackoverflow.com/questions/33054369/how-to-change-t...
|
| redhat created docker-compatible podman and lets you close that
| hole
|
| /etc/config/docker: BLOCK_REGISTRY='--block-registry=all'
| ADD_REGISTRY='--add-registry=registry.access.redhat.com'
| anon7000 wrote:
| Sadly doesn't help if you were using ECR in us-east-1 as your
| private registry. :(
| compootr wrote:
| I still think this is an acceptable footgun (?) to have. The
| expressiveness of downloading an image tag with a domain
| included outweighs potential miscommunication issues.
|
| For example, if you're on a team and you have documentation
| containing commands, but your docker config is outdated, you
| can accidentally pull from docker's global public registry.
|
| A welcome change IMO would be removing global registries
| entirely, since it just makes it easier to tell where your
| image is coming from (but I severely doubt docker would ever
| consider this since it makes it fractionally easier to use
| their services)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-20 23:01 UTC)