I'm fine switching to java 17, but it would be nice to see some benchmarks first before making it the default.
> Actually, it would be nice if we could publish all our images under apache > name-space, and then have docker folks symlink /_/solr to these like they > do for elastic. > We were explicitly told by the Docker folks that they are not going to green light anything like this going forward, and they wished they hadn't done it for elastic. So definitely a no-go. Or we could keep the official image on Java 11 to be conservative, and at > the same time publish some variants of our own under the apache namespace: This would certainly be possible and easy to do. I don' tknow if we need different Dockerfile.body templates for the > variants or if they could be built with just different build-args for FROM? We could either use the local or official docker file that is generated for the release, it doesn't really matter. All we would have to do is change the build-arg for the FROM. - Houston On Thu, Jan 6, 2022 at 4:27 PM Jan Høydahl <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Definitely a possibility. > Or we could keep the official image on Java 11 to be conservative, and at > the same time publish some variants of our own under the apache namespace: > > apache/solr:9.0.0-jre17 > apache/solr:9.0.0-jdk17 > apache/solr:9.0.0-jre11 > apache/solr:9.0.0-jdk11 > > I don' tknow if we need different Dockerfile.body templates for the > variants or if they could be built with just different build-args for FROM? > > Actually, it would be nice if we could publish all our images under apache > name-space, and then have docker folks symlink /_/solr to these like they > do for elastic. It would give us more freedom with advanced multi step > builds and smaller images. But I think that door is closed now. > > Jan > > 6. jan. 2022 kl. 22:03 skrev David Smiley <[email protected]>: > > I'd like to propose that our Docker image for Solr 9 move from Java 11 to > Java 17. Admittedly I don't have any familiarity with running 17, so I > would really like to hear from those of you using it. I'm guessing > (informed from some quick google searches) there are some ~minor > performance improvements but nothing eye-popping there. Mostly, I propose > this because a 9.0 release is an ideal time to make such a change instead > of some minor release in between that could introduce a subtle surprise for > some users. The new Shenandoah GC looks exciting but may not be > sufficiently ready for us to recommend (if I recall from a recent user who > reported a problem with it) -- and that's okay. Having this as an option > for users is great, especially as time progresses and future Docker Solr > releases include minor updates to the JVM base image that will increase the > viability. > > I'm aware our nifty image building enables people to do a custom build to > specify their own preferred FROM image, which is cool. Still, I think we > should move on to 17 as the default. > > ~ David Smiley > Apache Lucene/Solr Search Developer > http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidwsmiley > > >
