|
| 1 | +--- |
| 2 | +title: "Harbor_as_image_registry" |
| 3 | +date: "2025-03-31" |
| 4 | +--- |
| 5 | + |
| 6 | +| status: | date: | decision-makers: | |
| 7 | +| --- | --- | --- | |
| 8 | +| proposed | 2025-03-31 | Kasper Møller | |
| 9 | + |
| 10 | +## Context and Problem Statement |
| 11 | + |
| 12 | +Containerized applications require a reliable and secure image registry to store and distribute container images. The chosen solution must integrate seamlessly with Kubernetes, provide robust security features, and support scalability for future growth. |
| 13 | + |
| 14 | +The question is: **Which container image registry should we use for our on-premises Kubernetes cluster?** |
| 15 | + |
| 16 | +## Considered Options |
| 17 | + |
| 18 | +* **Harbor:** An open-source, cloud-native registry that provides vulnerability scanning, role-based access control (RBAC), and image replication. It integrates well with Kubernetes and supports OCI-compliant images. |
| 19 | +* **JFrog Artifactory:** A universal artifact repository manager that supports container images, binaries, and other artifacts. It offers advanced features like high availability, replication, and enterprise-grade security but comes with licensing costs. |
| 20 | +* **Sonatype Nexus:** A repository manager that supports container images and other artifacts. It provides features like vulnerability scanning and integration with CI/CD pipelines but lacks some Kubernetes-specific optimizations. |
| 21 | + |
| 22 | +## Decision Outcome |
| 23 | + |
| 24 | +Chosen option: **Harbor**, because it provides a strong balance of features, open-source flexibility, and seamless integration with Kubernetes, while avoiding the licensing costs associated with commercial solutions. |
| 25 | + |
| 26 | +### Consequences |
| 27 | + |
| 28 | +* **Good, because:** |
| 29 | + * Harbor is open-source and free to use, reducing costs. |
| 30 | + * It provides robust security features, including vulnerability scanning and RBAC, which align with our security requirements. |
| 31 | + * It integrates well with Kubernetes and supports image replication, making it suitable for multi-cluster setups. |
| 32 | + * Harbor supports Helm charts and OCI-compliant libraries, making it versatile for managing not only container images but also other Kubernetes-related artifacts. |
| 33 | + |
| 34 | +* **Bad, because:** |
| 35 | + * Harbor's user interface and feature set may not be as polished or extensive as JFrog Artifactory. |
| 36 | + * It lacks some advanced enterprise features, such as those offered by Artifactory, which might be needed for highly complex environments. |
| 37 | + * While Harbor supports Helm charts, its feature set for managing non-container artifacts may not be as comprehensive as JFrog Artifactory or Sonatype Nexus. |
| 38 | + |
| 39 | +### Recommendations |
| 40 | + |
| 41 | +* For organizations that require a cost-effective, Kubernetes-native solution with strong security features and support for Helm charts and OCI-compliant libraries, Harbor is an excellent choice. |
| 42 | +* For teams with complex artifact management needs and a budget for licensing, JFrog Artifactory may be a better fit due to its advanced features and broader artifact support. |
| 43 | +* For simpler use cases or teams already using Sonatype Nexus for other artifacts, Nexus can be considered, though it may lack Kubernetes-specific optimizations and advanced Helm chart support. |
0 commit comments