Docker shocker: Cash-strapped container crew threatens to delete 4.5 petabytes of unloved images
- Reference: 1597387450
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/08/14/docker_container_retention_policy/
- Source link:
The container pioneer can do so because it’s tweaked its [1]Terms of Service with an expanded clause 2.5 that adds the right to delete data.
The one-time DevOps darling has not changed that out of malice. Instead, as explained in a new [2]Container Retention FAQ , its Docker Hub is home to 15PB of user data. But plenty of that is unloved container images that haven’t been touched for ages.
“After detailed analysis of the container images stored on Docker Hub, we found that 4.5PB of the data have not been pushed or pulled within 6 months or longer,” the FAQ reveals.
Hence the new policy that will declare an image “inactive” if it hasn’t been pushed or pulled for six months. Images can be created under free plans, but only retained for perpetuity for those who pony up for paid plans.
“We are making this move to optimize operations and make the Docker Hub service even stronger for developers and development teams around the world who are using the service to build and ship applications,” the FAQ says.
Free tier users with dormant images in Docker Hub can either get back to work on them, or cough up for paid plans that start at a colossal US$5/month.
Docker has cooked up a dashboard to highlight the status of users’ images, to make sure they can see which ones are inactive.
Just Docker room talk: Container upstart's enterprise wing sold to Mirantis, CEO out, Swarm support faces ax [3]READ MORE
If we assume that Docker is an AWS user and pays published rates for 15PB in the S3 Intelligent-Tiering service, its bill is over $320,000 a month. If this clean-out results in 10 percent reduction in storage and a bump in paid accounts, it will help the struggling company, which in late 2019 told staff it needed more funds and raised some by [4]selling its enterprise business to Mirantis.
That sale made sense because Kubernetes has all-but-won the market Docker pitched for with its Swarm orchestration tool, if you can remember it. ®
Get our [5]Tech Resources
[1] https://www.docker.com/legal/docker-terms-service
[2] https://www.docker.com/pricing/retentionfaq
[3] https://www.theregister.com/2019/11/13/docker_enterprise_miranits/
[4] https://www.theregister.com/2019/11/13/docker_enterprise_miranits/
[5] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: 4.5PB? Is that all?
That's a lot of 30 second clips.
Re: 4.5PB? Is that all?
Shirley someone out there will have used Docker Hub as a distribution center for pirate activity?
Re: 4.5PB? Is that all?
If it was pirate stuff... then... Hopefully it would be accessed.. and thus not an issue...
To me the interesting part of the story is that Docker analyzed the data......
I do not use Docker..so do not know of the TOS.. but.. this means they can snoop on my image? Not what I want in a provider...
Re: 4.5PB? Is that all?
I would suspect that there is a big difference between activity logs, as in "last time this image was used" compared to analysing that is stored within the image itself.
Save the whales
How many sample whales are going to be killed by this move.
Has anybody listened to what the whales say ?
Re: Save the whales
Dory did. She even speaks whale...
So much abandoned repository stuff is people trying it out and then forgetting about it. I must have left a trail of trials.
Six months seems a fair amount of time to see if its been abandoned.
Maybe they could tweak the T&Cs so they can auction of the containers after 6 months, and it can get televised for a new show on Dave of 'virtual storage wars'.
Docker tweaked its terms of service
If a landlord tweaked his terms of leasing, there would be a court case, but because this is the Web, one-sided changes like that can be made and nobody can complain.
When will Terms of Service be recognized as a binding contract for both sides ? I understand Docker is struggling, and it's a shame for its employees, but it offered a free service and didn't think things through. Now it is trying to find a way to stay afloat, so it modifies the contract to put people's images in danger if they don't pay up.
Not fair. They offered a service under certain conditions, now they are unilaterally changing the conditions. That should not be allowed.
Re: Docker tweaked its terms of service
The usual boilerplate on T&C says that they may modify the conditions and the only recourse for the user is either implicitly accept the new terms by continuing usage of the services or leave. The most you might get are either the prorrated subscription fee unused for non-acceptance of new terms and the no application of any "quit-early" penalties (which used to be the standard issue on telecoms and utilities services not so long ago, at least where I live). This has been this way for ages, and if it hasn't been successfully challenged in court yet I hold no hope whatsoever to change.
However, there's a catch for hosting services: what if you do not log in to the service to administer it and be slapped in the face with the new T&C? I remember when the Photobucket service decided that "hot-linking images from third-party websites" required from a certain point in time the highest-grade account, and you had to either pay for it or let all your images render everywhere else with a "this fella hadn't paid our fee so you can't see a thing" placeholder image. Some sort of a ransomware-as-a-service, you might say.
But people who did not log in were never shown the new T&C and so these could not be enforced. So, if you logged in into your account you were screwed, but as long as you did not you were spared. Pretty sure if they did it that way was only because the lawyers told so to prevent a sueball. That's also why hosting-like services usually have a clause to allow them to purge content if no logins are made for a while.
Re: Docker tweaked its terms of service
I got an email yesterday from a client company I haven't provided services to as a freelancer for over three months. They wanted me to sign a "Termination Agreement" (which in itself sounds rather ominous). I read it – it places stricter non-compete clauses on me than the original contract. Thankfully, in this situation, it seems they can't just unilaterally change our agreement, but instead they need to try to trick me into signing something "routine" and "when I've got a minute". I've a good mind to poach some of their clients (which was allowed in the original contract) just to prove the point that I'm not obliged to sign away any further rights and there's bugger all they can do to make me.
Re: Docker tweaked its terms of service
If a landlord tweaked his terms of leasing ...
Can Docker be reasonably compared to a landlord and the service they are providing as leasing if it is free ? ie: I am not having to pay anything for it.
I'd be in a rage if I was a paying customer which would mean that certain previously stipulated conditions would have to be met by both parties, but seeing that all I have to do is a pull and/or push once every six months to keep things as they are, I'd just do that and said then thanks a lot for the heads up.
O.
At that price you could replace / add another set of mirrored redundancy every 3 months.
Excluding power / cooling and location costs etc.
4.5PB? Is that all?
Hell, I've got more cat porn videos than tha... errrmmm... I mean MUSIC! Yeah, music! I've got more music than that. No porn here, nopea nopea nope. Nothing to see here, please move along.