Repository navigation
Replies: 7 comments 18 replies
|
I could see that as a possibility for new container images we are doing for Keycloak.X, but would depend on a number of factors like:
If anyone from the community would like to do some research and propose something around this that would make it a lot more viable. |
|
Images can be built for ARM64 without too much effort: https://github.com/docker/build-push-action/blob/master/docs/advanced/multi-platform.md |
|
Maybe the support for ARM64 could be a best-effort, like other projects do, they provide an image for both AMD64 and ARM64, but they only test the AMD64 images until GitHub Actions provides ARM64 runners. |
|
Providing official ARM64 images (even untested) in jboss/keycloak would be great for cross-platform development. For now, I found sleighzy/keycloak working well. It seems there is no change in build process needed. |
|
We need an official ARM64 image too for docker. |
|
@dasniko - i do quite a few amd64/arm64 container builds with qemu and docker buildx. The workflow is very simple. The only issue I see is that you don't want to run the tests in arm64 as the compute time is slow, but taking the quarkus tar.gz and building and arm64 container would take seconds. I would submit a PR but I can't find the github workflow that builds the quarkus container... based on the quay.io/keycloak/keycloak it looks like a human is pushing them? |
|
Hello, I'll bump this. I think ARM64 support should be a priority since a lot of us are switching to M1 Macs and this makes Keycloak a pain point in our setup and we need to build our own Keycloak image. Using third party images from other people increases the chance of a vulnerability. |
|
Now that Quarkus distribution is the new supported distribution we're not going to consider ARM64 support for the legacy image, but should make this available to the new Quarkus images. Due to the Docker licensing we're not able to use Docker to build Keycloak containers, but rather need to use Podman or Buildah. End result is the same though. Right now we are building the containers manually with a script as a stop-gap solution as auto-builds stopped being a solution for us. We are planning on moving to GitHub Actions soon to replace this as we don't want and should not have manually steps in the release process. We also need to consider how we will test the container on ARM64, which I'm not sure if there are any runners for ARM64 available on GitHub. Was trying to build the Quarkus container for arm64, but it is failing for some reason: |
|
Using Buildah/Podman will be fine, there's GitHub Actions for those as well. However, right now it seems an arm64 build doesn't work for some reason, would be good if someone could check if that's an issue with Docker for the new image: https://github.com/keycloak/keycloak/tree/main/quarkus/container I looked at Docker's pricing, but couldn't really find out conclusively if it's only Desktop that is paid for. However, I feel much more comfortable with Podman/Buildah instead as those are more true open source projects. As developers we also need to be able to try/fix things locally with Podman. Docker can also at any time change the pricing scheme for other things as well, like they did to Desktop with fairly short warning. |
|
Figure out the solution to Podman build, just had to install qemu-user-static (https://lists.podman.io/archives/list/buildah@lists.buildah.io/thread/KKQSLFSVGSQI62EGFNG4Q3CTT23F7GUW/). |
|
Once again, not a Docker nor Keycloak expert. I've been using the script below to install keycloak (16.1.1) on my M1 Max: set -e
if [[ "${KEYCLOAK_VERSION:-x}" = "x" ]]; then
>&2 echo "$0: Variable KEYCLOAK_VERSION unset"
exit 1
fi
kc_version=$KEYCLOAK_VERSION
kc_dir=$(mktemp -d)
trap "rm -rf $kc_dir" EXIT INT # Executed twice if CTRL+C.
git clone git@github.com:keycloak/keycloak-containers.git $kc_dir
cd $kc_dir/server
git checkout $kc_version
docker build -t "jboss/keycloak:${kc_version}" .
docker build -t "quay.io/keycloak/keycloak:${kc_version}" .However, with keycloak 17, it fails: |
|
@BuonOmo Keycloak 17 is based on Quarkus, not on JBoss/WildFly, the script now is different |
|
What is the new script? |
|
We will provide ARM64 images for the new Quarkus distribution. Not quire sure when we are able to deliver it, and it may be blocked on updating to a new release process, but will try to get this done within the next couple months. |
|
This script here will build a local image for Keycloak 17.0.0, even for M1 Macs. Save this as an .sh file and execute it via your terminal. This is a good enough solution until the native port will be there. Right now Keycloak directly starts, but by disabling the last line this will just build the image. |
|
This linux/arm64 keycloak container solved it for me using docker-compose: Thats how it can be integrated into a .yaml file: |
|
We're now providing multi-arch for Quarkus and WildFly distributions |
For anyone wondering this appears to be for 17+ only, so 17.0.1-legacy if you are on wildfly. We were on 16.1.1 and went to 17.0.1-legacy and it seemed to work. Building 16.1.1 locally on the m1 that did work for others, did not work seamlessly for us. |
|
excuse me for the ignorance but can you provide a link? |
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Hi,
are there any plans to support/provide an arm64 based Docker image of Keycloak?
This would be awesome as it would improve not at least development with/for Keycloak on Mac M1 machines, but also other platforms offer arm based hardware.
- Niko
[@stianst] Yes, we will deliver arm64 images for the new Quarkus distribution only, aiming to have this in Keycloak 18. #8825
All reactions