Hi, Rameish!
Are there vulnerabilities in Apache Ignite's jars, dependency's jars or
container software?
Also — can you share the way you've run checks, please?
> On 9 Jun 2022, at 08:13, Gadamsetty, Rameish
> wrote:
>
> Hi Team,
>
> All, We ran Twist
Hi Team,
All, We ran Twist lock scan on Docker Image Apache ignite/ignite:2.13.0 and
observed many vulnerabilities, Can we get new image with fixes or is there any
other way to fix vulnerabilities?
Thanks & Regards,
Rameish G.V.N
Prajakta Chaudhari created IGNITE-14017:
---
Summary: We are willing to add s390x support to the docker image.
Key: IGNITE-14017
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-14017
Project
Denis A. Magda created IGNITE-13935:
---
Summary: Update Ignite docker image description
Key: IGNITE-13935
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13935
Project: Ignite
Issue Type
Ilya Kasnacheev created IGNITE-13162:
Summary: Slim docker image for Apache Ignite
Key: IGNITE-13162
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-13162
Project: Ignite
Issue Type
Hello!
I have fixed nightly and release builds. They should now build
apache-ignite-slim. Please contact me if that does not happen.
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
ср, 17 июн. 2020 г. в 17:00, Ilya Kasnacheev :
> Hello!
>
> I have just merged slim binary release to master.
>
> I will now try to
Hello!
I have just merged slim binary release to master.
I will now try to tweak nightly builds TC suite to build this package also.
It may be broken for some brief period of time.
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
вт, 10 мар. 2020 г. в 18:24, Ilya Kasnacheev :
> Hello!
>
> I understand that proce
the reported issue?
>
> -
> Denis
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:45 PM Jared Gholston wrote:
>
>> I'm not exactly sure what version of the ignite docker image we are using,
>> but it is not using BusyBox. The new version the following fails:
>>
Jared, thanks for the details.
Igniters, is there anyone who had a chance prepared our Docker images for
releases can look into the reported issue?
-
Denis
On Fri, Apr 3, 2020 at 2:45 PM Jared Gholston wrote:
> I'm not exactly sure what version of the ignite docker image we are usin
I'm not exactly sure what version of the ignite docker image we are using,
but it is not using BusyBox. The new version the following fails:
wget https://google.com
this works:
wget http://google.com
Any https wget fails on the new docker image. We import several jars usin
Igniters,
One of our users reported an issue related to the latest docker image:
https://twitter.com/jarbot/status/1245945256756957184?s=21
Can someone check what exactly was broken?
Denis
--
-
Denis
Hello!
I understand that procedures are courtesy Apache Ignite, but I assume that
you went through them and can now repeat them reproducibly.
Thank you!
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
вт, 10 мар. 2020 г. в 18:12, Maxim Muzafarov :
> Ilya,
>
> It is not "mine" generic release procedures they are "ours" :-
Ilya,
It is not "mine" generic release procedures they are "ours" :-)
I've created the issue [1] based on current discussion thread.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12765
On Tue, 10 Mar 2020 at 13:31, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> It is currently included.
>
> Maxim, c
Maxim Muzafarov created IGNITE-12765:
Summary: Slim binary release and docker image for Apache Ignite
Key: IGNITE-12765
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12765
Project: Ignite
Hello!
It is currently included.
Maxim, can you prepare a slim release package based on your generic release
procedures? We could take a look at it and then perhaps add it to downloads
page officially.
What do you think?
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
пт, 6 мар. 2020 г. в 20:48, Maxim Muzafarov
Ilya,
`ignite-compress` is necessary for `wal page snapshot compression` [1]
which in turn shows very good performance results. So, I suppose, it's
better to include it to the "slim" binary.
[1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11336
On Fri, 6 Mar 2020 at 13:31, Ilya Kasnacheev wrot
Hello!
I added these because they are infrastructural to Ignite, as opposed to
integrations. They are also both very slim.
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
пт, 6 мар. 2020 г. в 13:25, Stephen Darlington <
stephen.darling...@gridgain.com>:
> Why ignite-jta and ignite-urideploy? Anecdotally at least
Why ignite-jta and ignite-urideploy? Anecdotally at least, I know very few
people who use either.
> On 6 Mar 2020, at 11:09, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> Re-posting from *[DISCUSSION] Release Apache Ignite 2.8.0 RC1*
>
> I have prepared assemblies for Apache Ignite slim packaging:
>
Hello!
Re-posting from *[DISCUSSION] Release Apache Ignite 2.8.0 RC1*
I have prepared assemblies for Apache Ignite slim packaging:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/tree/ignite-slim
It is based on ignite-2.8
You can build it with mvn initialize -Prelease,lgpl -Dignite.edition=apache-
ignite-slim
Alex, could you please list all the modules that will be excluded? It will
help to confirm we haven't dumped anything essential.
-
Denis
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 12:33 AM Alexey Goncharuk <
alexey.goncha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Got it, sounds good!
> Should we consider the list of modules include
Got it, sounds good!
Should we consider the list of modules included in the slim package
finalized?
чт, 16 янв. 2020 г. в 13:13, Igor Sapego :
> Alexey, if I understand correctly, Ilya does not suggest to pre-built
> binaries, just to ship it with configure script pre-generated, which
> is a comm
Alexey, if I understand correctly, Ilya does not suggest to pre-built
binaries, just to ship it with configure script pre-generated, which
is a common practice for autotools packages. Building will be still
required for the user, but there will be less requirements and
possible errors during build.
To me it doesn't really matter if it will be 'slim' or 'lite' :) I would
not name it 'core' because indeed it would be confusing with the core
module name.
Agree that platforms support is useful, so I would keep them as Ilya
suggested. As for the C++ packages pre-build - let's hear out Igor's
opin
I'm +1 for "SLIM" it is a common name in Docker world.
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 9:48 PM Petr Ivanov wrote:
> +1 for slim binary
> Plus docker-slim
> Plus RPM / DEB packages modularisation like PHP distribution — with core
> and lots of integrations / modules.
>
> > On 15 Jan 2020, at 17:40, Ilya
+1 for slim binary
Plus docker-slim
Plus RPM / DEB packages modularisation like PHP distribution — with core and
lots of integrations / modules.
> On 15 Jan 2020, at 17:40, Ilya Kasnacheev wrote:
>
> Hello!
>
> I think we should name it "core" since we already have ignite-core and it
> will be
Hello!
I think we should name it "core" since we already have ignite-core and it
will be confusing. Maybe we should go full 00s and call it "lite"?
I also think we should keep both .Net and C++. .Net is runnable out of box
which is awesome, and C++ needs building but it is rather small in source
Alex,
I'm on your end and support the proposal. Could you also clarify if you
suggest we keeping or removing C++ and .NET thick clients?
Speaking of the naming, how about titling such packages as 'core' instead
of 'slim', i.e., 'apache-ignite-core-{version}'?
-
Denis
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 5
Hello!
Pavel, I believe these JARs are fully covered by the list of modules
specified above.
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 14:50, Pavel Tupitsyn :
> I like the idea, current distribution is certainly too big.
>
> Here is a list of jar files we include in NuGet package:
>
>
I like the idea, current distribution is certainly too big.
Here is a list of jar files we include in NuGet package:
cache-api-1.0.0.jar
commons-codec-1.11.jar
commons-logging-1.1.1.jar
h2-1.4.197.jar
ignite-core-2.9.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
ignite-indexing-2.9.0-SNAPSHOT.jar
ignite-shmem-1.0.0.jar
ignite-
Hello!
This is a reasonable idea.
I think we should also drop benchmarks/ directory from that build, it's 60M
of (potentially vulnerable) JARs that are not needed by an average
developer's use cases.
Regards,
--
Ilya Kasnacheev
ср, 15 янв. 2020 г. в 13:10, Alexey Goncharuk :
> Igniters,
>
>
Igniters,
I would like to discuss with the community a possibility to create
additional 'slim' binary releases and docker images for Apache Ignite. The
reason is two-fold:
* The full set of 3rd party libraries distributed with Apache Ignite looks
too large for me. I know there is an ongoing activ
Hi Andrey,
Thank you for review and approving my request.
As discussed I also validated the apache-ignite docker image and I am
getting different error as mentioned below.
Step 5/11 : COPY apache-ignite* apache-ignite
COPY failed: no source files were specified
I will look into apache-ignite
Looks like same logic is used for apache-ignite docker image. I approved your PR
On Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 3:22 AM Saikat Maitra wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> This is a tiny PR. Please take a look and let me know if it is ok to merge.
>
> I have validated the results locally and it is w
GNITE-12018 Web Agent docker image: 'functions.sh' not found
>
> Jira issue : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12018
>
> PR : https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6808
>
> Please review and share feedback.
>
> Regards,
> Saikat
>
>
>
Hello,
I have raised PR for the following issue
IGNITE-12018 Web Agent docker image: 'functions.sh' not found
Jira issue : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12018
PR : https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/6808
Please review and share feedback.
Regards,
Saikat
Igor Belyakov created IGNITE-12018:
--
Summary: Web Agent docker image: 'functions.sh' not found
Key: IGNITE-12018
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12018
Proje
Igor Belyakov created IGNITE-12007:
--
Summary: Latest "apacheignite/web-console-backend" docker image is
broken
Key: IGNITE-12007
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-12007
Alexey Kuznetsov created IGNITE-10889:
-
Summary: Web Console should work with Web Agent started from
Docker image.
Key: IGNITE-10889
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10889
Vasiliy Sisko created IGNITE-10121:
--
Summary: Web console: Create documentation how to run Web agent as
Docker image
Key: IGNITE-10121
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10121
Project
Github user asfgit closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4038
---
Ivan Yani created IGNITE-8932:
-
Summary: Docker image: doesn't handle SIGTERM
Key: IGNITE-8932
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8932
Project: Ignite
Issue Type
GitHub user vveider opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/4038
IGNITE-8526 Create web-agent docker image for k8s deployment
* added web-agent separate docker image build
* refactored and unified docker specifications layout
You can merge this pull
Roman Guseinov created IGNITE-8526:
--
Summary: Create web-agent docker image for k8s deployment
Key: IGNITE-8526
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8526
Project: Ignite
Issue
Peter Ivanov created IGNITE-8281:
Summary: Add Docker image build for Apache Ignite Release
Key: IGNITE-8281
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8281
Project: Ignite
Issue Type
Peter Ivanov created IGNITE-8222:
Summary: Add docker image build for Nightly Release
Key: IGNITE-8222
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-8222
Project: Ignite
Issue Type: New
ther images to 2.3?
>
> —
> Denis
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *bjason
> *Subject: **ignite 2.3.0 docker image contains 2.2.0 files.*
> *Date: *November 2, 2017 at 3:37:34 PM PDT
> *To: *u...@ignite.apache.org
> *Reply-To: *u...@ignite.apache.org
>
&g
Nick, Vovan,
Have we really upgraded docker and the other images to 2.3?
—
Denis
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: bjason
> Subject: ignite 2.3.0 docker image contains 2.2.0 files.
> Date: November 2, 2017 at 3:37:34 PM PDT
> To: u...@ignite.apache.org
> Reply-To: u
Denis Magda created IGNITE-5508:
---
Summary: Document Web Console Installation from Docker Image
Key: IGNITE-5508
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5508
Project: Ignite
Issue
I have verified on OS X Yosemite (V 10.10.5) with docker 1.12 with ignite
1.7 and it worked fine.
It would be great if someone verifies it also.
Thanks
--
Chandresh Pancholi
Senior Software Engineer
Flipkart.com
Email-id:chandresh.panch...@flipkart.com
Contact:08951803660
Github user zshamrock closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/757
---
If your project is set up for it, you can reply to this email and have your
reply appear on GitHub as well. If your project does not have this feature
enabled and wishes so, or if the feature is e
, at 3:18 PM, zshamrock
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi, guys, what about the following
> https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/757?
> >
> > Is already someone from DataGrid/Ignite working on official docker image
> for
> > 1.6.0 release, or you can take a look into the pull
Nikolay,
As a maintainer of this component please do the review.
—
Denis
> On Jun 5, 2016, at 3:18 PM, zshamrock wrote:
>
> Hi, guys, what about the following https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/757?
>
> Is already someone from DataGrid/Ignite working on official docker im
Updated Dockerfile/PR - reduce the generated Docker image size from 1.061GB
to 885MB.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/Docker-image-for-Ignite-1-6-0-release-pull-request-tp9276p9282.html
Sent from the Apache Ignite Developers mailing list
Hi, guys, what about the following https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/757?
Is already someone from DataGrid/Ignite working on official docker image for
1.6.0 release, or you can take a look into the pull request above I've
submitted.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-i
GitHub user zshamrock opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/757
Docker image for Ignite 1.6.0
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/zshamrock/ignite master
Alternatively you can review and apply
Thanks, Nikolay!
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Nikolay Tikhonov
wrote:
> Val,
>
> Our docker repo contains not only the latest version or 1.0.0-incubating,
> there all versions. List of versions here [1]. I've updated "Dockerfile"
> tab, now it shows dockerfile from "1.5.0.final" tag.
>
> [
Val,
Our docker repo contains not only the latest version or 1.0.0-incubating,
there all versions. List of versions here [1]. I've updated "Dockerfile"
tab, now it shows dockerfile from "1.5.0.final" tag.
[1] https://hub.docker.com/r/apacheignite/ignite/tags
On Fri, Jan 29, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Val
Nikolay,
As far as I know you were creating Docker images for Ignite.
I just opened it [1] and noticed that the version is 1.0.0 there. Is there
a reason for this? Can we switch it to the latest?
[1] https://hub.docker.com/r/apacheignite/ignite/~/dockerfile/
-Val
Denis Magda created IGNITE-2377:
---
Summary: Docker image run on Mac OS hangs
Key: IGNITE-2377
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-2377
Project: Ignite
Issue Type: Wish
Affects
0-incubating, 1.1.0-incubating, 1.2.0-incubating and etc) [1] and
> stores specific ignite distributive i.e. image with tag 1.0.0-incubating
> stores Ignite 1.0.0-incubating distributive, 1.1.0-incubating stores Ignite
> 1.1.0-incubating and etc. For downloading docker image with speci
1.1.0-incubating and etc. For downloading docker image with specific
version need to perform docker pull and specify the tag. For example:
docker pull apacheignite/ignite:1.4.0 (1.4.0 is tag) download image with
Ignite 1.4.0 distributive. Whenever tag is not specific (docker pull
apacheignite/ignite
AM, Nikolay Tikhonov
wrote:
> >
> > In that case, why does the docker image contain any version of Ignite at
> > all?
> >
> We download docker image which was built from Dockerfile (which contains
> specific version of Ignite) and the image contains Ignite
>
> In that case, why does the docker image contain any version of Ignite at
> all?
>
We download docker image which was built from Dockerfile (which contains
specific version of Ignite) and the image contains Ignite distributive.
Apache Ignite distributive is downloaded only once i
Nick,
It sounds like we always download a version of ignite, either latest or
provided by user. In that case, why does the docker image contain any
version of Ignite at all?
D.
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Nikolay Tikhonov
wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Dmitriy Setrak
ss a version is explicitly specified, the docker
> file should download the latest version.
>
Docker image contains a specific version of Ignite. Apache Ignite docker
repo contains the following tags [1] that essentially means exist six
docker images and each contains own version Ignite. F
>
> > Gents,
> >
> > I just looked at the Ignite docker image [1] and it has the following
> > directive in it:
> >
> > *ENV IGNITE_HOME /opt/ignite/ignite-fabric-1.0.0-incubating*
> >
> > Looked like it needs some freshening up.
> >
> > Nick, given that you have been managing this docker account, can you
> please
> > update it?
> >
> > D.
> >
>
ite/ignite/~/dockerfile/
2.
https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=ignite.git;a=tree;f=modules/docker;h=7406e8b30a8ec6c2cdf9974c4a4e41c3df838bbf;hb=HEAD
On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:17 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan
wrote:
> Gents,
>
> I just looked at the Ignite docker image [1] and it has the followin
Gents,
I just looked at the Ignite docker image [1] and it has the following
directive in it:
*ENV IGNITE_HOME /opt/ignite/ignite-fabric-1.0.0-incubating*
Looked like it needs some freshening up.
Nick, given that you have been managing this docker account, can you please
update it?
D.
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Probably it means that we should use openjdk by default for development
> > and
> > > testing as well?
> > >
> >
> > We can, but I am not sure why we have to. Can you explain?
> >
> >
> > >
> > &
gi
> >
> > 2015-09-17 7:39 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan :
> >
> > > Ignters,
> > >
> > > Can we change our docker image to download the OpenJDK? We should not
> > > automatically download Oracle JDK in the docker image - it is against
> the
> > > license.
> > >
> > > My preference would be to fix it for 1.4 release.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > D.
> > >
> >
>
akyan :
>
> > Ignters,
> >
> > Can we change our docker image to download the OpenJDK? We should not
> > automatically download Oracle JDK in the docker image - it is against the
> > license.
> >
> > My preference would be to fix it for 1.4 release.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > D.
> >
>
Probably it means that we should use openjdk by default for development and
testing as well?
Sergi
2015-09-17 7:39 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan :
> Ignters,
>
> Can we change our docker image to download the OpenJDK? We should not
> automatically download Oracle JDK in the docker i
Ignters,
Can we change our docker image to download the OpenJDK? We should not
automatically download Oracle JDK in the docker image - it is against the
license.
My preference would be to fix it for 1.4 release.
Thanks,
D.
73 matches
Mail list logo