
Google Container Registry - fbueno
https://cloud.google.com/tools/container-registry/
======
notatoad
>Pricing

>During the beta period you will be charged only for the Google Cloud Storage
storage and network egress consumed by your Docker images.

Dammit google, this is not how you price things. Especially when people have
been burned by price jumps on your service before. I don't know why i'd bother
integrating with a service when I have no idea what the cost will be.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Dammit google, this is not how you price things.

It actually is the way Google quite often prices things.

> I don't know why i'd bother integrating with a service when I have no idea
> what the cost will be.

Then maybe a pre-release service for which Google has not yet developed the
experience with usage patterns that will let it price the service
appropriately isn't for you. But that's okay, its not intended for everybody
-- even everybody for whom the service would be appropriate when GA -- hence
the Beta label.

~~~
e12e
>> Dammit google, this is not how you price things.

> It actually is the way Google quite often prices things.

True, that doesn't mean it's a good idea.

> maybe a pre-release service (...)

Also true.

------
soccerdave
I really expected for Amazon to release a Container Registry before they took
the preview status off ECS. Looks like Google beat them to the punch. I'd
still be very interested to see if Amazon will release something soon.

~~~
istvan__
Yes a little bit of competition in the container registry space would be good
for everybody. I need to have a closer look how good is this Google offering.
One problem that we run into was security when started to use Docker. The
management did not want to upload the images to any cloud provider, so we were
forced to create a registry in our infrastructure. For this use case Registry
2.0 is going to be a better option.

[http://blog.docker.com/2015/04/faster-and-better-image-
distr...](http://blog.docker.com/2015/04/faster-and-better-image-distribution-
with-registry-2-0-and-engine-1-6/)

------
smrtinsert
Aweosme, I can't wait till they pull the plug out from under me.

~~~
derefr
I imagine that wouldn't be very likely in this case—this is much less like
Google's usual "let's build some random thing and see if customers like it",
and instead very much in the vein of the way Amazon treats AWS: as a set of
infrastructure services they themselves consume, but also happen to expose to
the public.

Now, they might make it _private_ in the future, but as long as Google are
using containers for everything, I don't think the service is likely to just
go unmaintained and fade away.

~~~
lern_too_spel
From what I know of Google's infrastructure, they are very unlikely to be
consuming this internally, just like the rest of GCP. Just because they use
containers doesn't mean they use this container repository. Just because they
use Java web servers doesn't mean they use AppEngine.

~~~
cmelbye
Google absolutely uses App Engine internally, and many other GCP offerings as
well. This is simply inaccurate.

~~~
lern_too_spel
They use the external version of App Engine to run any of their customer-
facing products? Which ones? Products -- I'm not talking about marketing
micro-sites.

~~~
yid
Not Google, but Snapchat runs on AppEngine.

------
subway
This looks like it still uses Docker's craptastic who-needs-image-verification
protocol.

No thanks.

------
tonyhb
Is this specifically aimed at compute cloud users for faster deploys?

I would much rather go with dockerhub than use this. Egress pricing sucks. I'd
rather have it from docker, who made the tool for my containers, than google.

What about docker 1.6, with image and container labels? Will Google keep this
up to date?

~~~
hueving
>I'd rather have it from docker, who made the tool for my containers, than
google.

Interesting take on things. It's mostly contributions from Google that made
containers viable in the first place.

~~~
tonyhb
True that, the original LXC library was Google. Then Docker wrote their own
implementation called libcontainer (and systemd-nspawn popped about).

While Google made containers possible I think Docker made them happen. I can't
imagine committing an LXC container and pushing it to a repo if it weren't for
docker. Nor would I want to manage raw networking in LXC. Nor sharing of
filesystems.

~~~
asuffield
(Tedious disclaimer: my opinion, not my employer's. Not representing anybody
else. I work at Google, not on borg)

You might find the borg paper very interesting:
[http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.co...](http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en/us/pubs/archive/43438.pdf)

The bits of containers that made it out into lxc are essentially borglet
features. The rest of the infrastructure around it was never released to the
outside world, and now docker is recreating some of that infrastructure. We've
had borg for a long time ;)

There's lots more detail in the paper about how these pieces relate to each
other.

------
asher_
Interesting. I've been using google/docker-registry to have a private docker
registry based in Google Cloud Storage for some time now. I wonder what
additional benefits this service will provide for the (presumably) higher
price once it comes out of beta.

------
nickleefly
Still beta, Google should have competitive price

------
Animats
Next, the Google Container Store?

Only Google-approved containers will be allowed. No competing with "core
Google services".

