Consider container image rename of kubeflow/storage-initializer

[tarilabs]

What you would like to be added?

This image: https://hub.docker.com/r/kubeflow/storage-initializer
from: https://github.com/kubeflow/training-operator/blob/master/sdk/python/kubeflow/storage_initializer/Dockerfile

is generically called: kubeflow/storage-initializer to integrate with KServe as a Custom Storage Initializer.

Kindly consider renaming it something more specific to avoid end-user confusion?

Why is this needed?

From Model Registry,
we are also now producing a KServe CSI image: https://hub.docker.com/r/kubeflow/model-registry-storage-initializer
named specifically kubeflow/model-registry-storage-initializer
to serve integration needs of Model Registry <-> KServe .

For more details, see this guide.

I believe making the image name specific to <capability>-storage-initializer will avoid confusion in the long term for Kubeflow end-users, also if other KF components will end up providing their own requirements of CSI !

wdyt @andreyvelich @terrytangyuan ?

Love this feature?

Give it a 👍 We prioritize the features with most 👍

[andreyvelich]

Thanks for creating this @tarilabs! Yes, we might want to find better name (e.g. training-storage-initializer)
cc @johnugeorge @deepanker13

[terrytangyuan]

Yes agreed that we should have more unique names based on capabilities.

[deepanker13]

shall we rename it to kubeflow/model-dataset-downloader ?
cc @andreyvelich @terrytangyuan

[tenzen-y]

shall we rename it to kubeflow/model-dataset-downloader ? cc @andreyvelich @terrytangyuan

I think that training- prefix would be better so that we can avoid conflicting with other projects.

[andreyvelich]

Yes, we might want to add training-.
Additionally, after V2, we are planning to separate dataset-initializer and model-initializer in 2 different containers: #2171

[github-actions]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[tarilabs]

still valid imho.

[github-actions]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[github-actions]

This issue has been automatically closed because it has not had recent activity. Please comment "/reopen" to reopen it.

[tarilabs]

/reopen

[google-oss-prow]

@tarilabs: Reopened this issue.

In response to this:

/reopen

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.