[Hawkular-dev] Docker image size does matter

[Gareth Healy]

>From experience in the field, i've not had any customers complain / comment
on the size of images as of yet - been on OpenShift engagements for over a
 year now.

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Matt Wringe <mwringe at redhat.com> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Heiko W.Rupp" <hrupp at redhat.com>
> > To: "Discussions around Hawkular development" <
> hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, 1 February, 2017 7:19:34 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Hawkular-dev] Docker image size does matter
> >
> > On 1 Feb 2017, at 12:29, Jiri Kremser wrote:
> >
> > > base image with JRE 8 and Alpine linux: 76.8 MB
> >
> > Yes, alpine is only 3-4 MB that is great.
>
> Please also take into consideration that minimal docker images do not
> contain common commands and can be a pain if you need to go into the
> container and run commands.
>
> Trying to debug issues when you don't have access to basic commands can be
> a bit frustrating. Especially if you are not root and cannot just install
> binaries in the container.
>
> > > I also removed
> > > 9.2M  /opt/jboss/wildfly/docs
> >
> > Makes sense.
> >
> >
> > > What also helped was squashing all the image layers into 1. This makes
> > > the
> > > download faster and possibly the image smaller. When applying
> > > docker-squash
> > > [1] to the current h-services image it saves ~50megs
> >
> > This is a bit of a false friend as docker pull only transfers layers it
> > does not yet have.
> >
> > E.g
> >
> > $ docker pull pilhuhn/hawkular-services:0.30.0.Final
> > 0.30.0.Final: Pulling from pilhuhn/hawkular-services
> > 08d48e6f1cff: Already exists
> > 664e6a3041e6: Already exists
> > 2f8461e7022b: Already exists
> > 9500f4548bd3: Already exists
> > 69e2e5217a47: Already exists
> > cf95509fd4ad: Downloading [======>
> >       ] 10.75 MB/89.61 MB
> >
> > So what you say is true for the first download, but afterwards all
> > the base layers of wf + jdk + ... are present. With stripping
> > into 1 layer there is no chance of caching.
> > Situation of course changes when the base layer is updated
> >
> >
> > > I am aware that this probably wont fly with some RH policy that we
> > > should
> > > base our SW on Fedora/RHEL base OS images, but I am gonna use them for
> > > development and because I often run out of space because of Docker.
> >
> > I like those alpine images and use them for private stuff,
> > but for Hawkular upstream I think we should use something
> > that is close for downstream so minimise the moving parts.
> > _______________________________________________
> > hawkular-dev mailing list
> > hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
> >
> _______________________________________________
> hawkular-dev mailing list
> hawkular-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/hawkular-dev/attachments/20170202/bed14667/attachment.html