volsync
volsync copied to clipboard
backube
Add support for ARM64 architecture
Describe the feature you'd like to have.
Add support for ARM64 architecture
What is the value to the end user? (why is it a priority?)
Currently it's not possible to run VolSync on ARM64. The architecture is needed since cloud providers start to adopt Ampere based platforms.
How will we know we have a good solution? (acceptance criteria)
Image registry should contain multi arch container images.
It looks like docker buildx build --platform=linux/arm64,linux/amd64 . works (it should also work for more platforms).
I guess the only change needed is to modify the Makefile:
https://github.com/backube/volsync/blob/47f516f6a8bbb2ac2271e6b76862cf894030ad3e/Makefile#L169-L170
And Github Actions will take care of building and pushing the image.
I do not think that is all that needs to be done since they compile restic / rclone etc.. from source. Those CLI tools need to be compiled for arm64 as well
@onedr0p I have a working container, but I've only tested manager and rsync-tls: ghcr.io/pl4nty/volsync:latest@sha256:badb717674f94ca32a04c94edec580ad2581922493b277c42eac2d5560c84ea7
restic, syncthing, and rclone shell out to go build though, so they should get GOARCH=arm64 by default and compile appropriately
@Yeicor there's already a boilerplate docker-buildx task, but GitHub Actions needs additional setup to use BuildKit
Build locally was very straight forward, but took 26 minutes. Isn't better to use a precompiled version of tools?
docker buildx build --platform linux/amd64,linux/arm64 -t zimbres/volsync:0.7.1 --push .
I only tested restic usage on arm64.
@zimbres I loosely brought that up here.
https://github.com/backube/volsync/pull/558#issuecomment-1371068807