<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Oci on Pi Stack</title>
    <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/tags/oci/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Oci on Pi Stack</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://www.pistack.xyz/tags/oci/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Self-Hosted Container Registry Lifecycle Management: Harbor vs CNCF Distribution vs Zot</title>
      <link>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-05-19-self-hosted-container-registry-lifecycle-harbor-distribution-zot-guide/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://www.pistack.xyz/posts/2026-05-19-self-hosted-container-registry-lifecycle-harbor-distribution-zot-guide/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Container registries are a critical part of any container-native infrastructure, but as teams push more images, storage costs spiral and registries become bloated with unused layers, outdated tags, and abandoned projects. Without proper lifecycle management, you end up paying for storage you don&amp;rsquo;t need and slowing down pull operations. This guide compares three leading open-source container registry solutions — &lt;strong&gt;Harbor&lt;/strong&gt;, &lt;strong&gt;CNCF Distribution&lt;/strong&gt; (formerly Docker Registry), and &lt;strong&gt;Zot&lt;/strong&gt; — focused specifically on their image lifecycle management capabilities: garbage collection, retention policies, tag immutability, and automated cleanup workflows.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
