firebuild VS buildkit

Regarding turning Dockerfiles into a MicroVM: https://gruchalski.com/posts/2021-03-23-introducing-firebuil..., on GitHub: https://github.com/combust-labs/firebuild. This could get you started.

Disclaimer: I’m the author.

> See, and in almost all of my use-cases, I really do. I do HPC computing, which is almost always a multi-tenant environment.

Maybe you need firecracker with something along the lines of https://github.com/combust-labs/firebuild?

I was the one who posted that question and I deleted it because I understood I was asking to compare apple to oranges. Firecracker uses KVM under the hood. With regards to the overhead, sure, there's going to be resources needed but firecracker is pretty good at running VMs will low level overhead. We're talking thousands on a single host.

I've done some fair share of evaluating firecracker for https://github.com/combust-labs/firebuild and the need to provision is red herring. firebuild can run a VM directly from a Dockerfile and Docker image. Fly.io team does something similar. It's basically a fully functional app out of the container within a matter of milliseconds.

What would be nice is to see a direct comparison between your solution and firecracker.

I am working on something like this: https://github.com/combust-labs/firebuild.

From a Dockerfile, it's not as simple without creating an image first.

The currently proposed solution is to allow Docker to bind the cache directory in the build to a directory on the host. This way the cache could be persisted externally. However, this issue has been opened for almost 4 years (May 27, 2020) with no clear answer as to whether it'll be implemented any time soon.

> We are uding docker-in-docker at the moment

You can also run a "less privileged" container with all the features of Docker by using rootless buildkit in Kubernetes. Here are some examples:

https://github.com/moby/buildkit/tree/master/examples/kubern...

https://github.com/moby/buildkit/blob/master/examples/kubern...

It's also possible to run dedicated buildkitd workers and connect to them remotely.

- BuildOp evaluates its input as additional LLB operations to add to the graph to allow for dynamic build graphs (also unused in the Dockerfile frontend)

With the Dockerfile Explorer, we run the Dockerfile frontend[1] that BuildKit uses inside of WASM to parse and produce the LLB output locally in your browser. We then embed the Monaco Editor so that you can change your Dockerfile to see how it impacts the LLB output that BuildKit will use to build your Docker image.

You can see a quick video and read more details on how it all works here: https://depot.dev/blog/dockerfile-explorer.

We'd love any feedback or ideas folks would like around this type of tool!

[0] https://github.com/moby/buildkit#exploring-llb

Now since Kubernetes works off of containerd I'll be taking a different approach on handling container builds by using nerdctl and the buildkit that comes bundled with it. I'll do this on the amd64 control plane node since it's beefier than my Raspberry Pi workers for handling builds and build related services. Go ahead and download and unpack the latest nerdctl release as of writing (make sure to check the release page in case there's a new one):

There's a 2-year-old moby/buildkit GitHub issue about frequent build cache misses when using the BuildKit docker-container driver and multi-stage builds. Anyone else in this sub run into this problem and/or have reasonable workarounds? It seems like something that should come up pretty often.

A couple months ago I encountered a bug in buildkit - when enabling OpenTelemetry tracing, we got occasional panics. With a bit of investigation, we found the cause, fixed and tested in our fork and internal deployments, and pushed to upstream.

I do some search in the internet and there seems to be no good solution, so I just create a feature request: https://github.com/moby/buildkit/issues/3859

Yeah, only Linux containers at the moment, BuildKit is the way we are constructing pipelines and doing caching. Split on if we will support non-linux hosts, but definitely want to find a good solution to not doing Docker-in-Docker.