Re: [Hawkular-dev] Docker image size does matter

From: "Heiko W.Rupp" <hrupp(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Discussions around Hawkular development" <hawkular-dev(a)lists.jboss.org&gt; 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.

> 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(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hawkular-dev