[throwaway894345]

> I mostly write web servers in Go, which (as the article says) are executed rarely, so init time really doesn't matter to me.

Presumably a few mb of disk usage also doesn't matter then? I also write web services, but I do care about the init time precisely because I want to be deployments to take as little time as possible so that we can deploy (and rollback) many times per day with relatively simple automation. That said, the bottleneck to fast deployments isn't the binary starting up, but the machine pulling the executable artifact, so the binary sizes do matter to me. That said, very often these executable artifacts are a Docker image, which tend to come with a lot more bloat than one will find in a Go binary, so step 1 is getting your Go binary on a scratch image.

[marcus_holmes]

Yeah, it's a trade-off. At the moment the longest part of my deploy is copying the new executable to the server. I'd trade a couple of seconds of init time for a smaller executable because that would result in a faster deploy.

I don't use Docker to deploy, because it's just a single executable file (and a bunch of templates, though I'm looking at embedding those). One of the reasons I'm reluctant to go down the Docker road is because it's going to add more time to my deployment.

[jerf]

I still use Docker images to deploy several of my Go systems. For one, it's nice to have it integrated into other ecosystems where a "Docker image" is just the base level of functionality. The additional security (even if not necessarily perfect) and isolation isn't all bad either.

It's perfectly fine to compile a Go binary and stick it into a Docker container on its own; it is not obligatory for a Docker container to contain a full Linux installation. I've got a couple of Docker files that are pretty much just

    FROM scratch

    ADD my_binary /

(Usually my bind mounts and the command executed are set up elsewhere for logging and such.)

It is also a convenient way of knowing exactly what your dependencies are... for instance I have several Go containers that also have to include a trusted cert store so they can access remote HTTPS resources correctly. Since you don't need a full Linux install to run a Go binary, it's very easy to use Docker as a complete, human-comprehensible manifest of exactly what is in that container.

[throwaway894345]

> I don't use Docker to deploy, because it's just a single executable file (and a bunch of templates, though I'm looking at embedding those). One of the reasons I'm reluctant to go down the Docker road is because it's going to add more time to my deployment.

Yeah, I don't advocate Docker for its own sake, but my organization deploys everything via Kubernetes because it's simpler than having a bespoke orchestration strategy/toolchain for each project, but if you're a one-project shop then containerization probably doesn't add a lot of value (although I still haven't figured out a streamlined, reliable way to provision/configure VMs).

[cristaloleg]

Have you tried UPX ?

Can be a good start https://blog.filippo.io/shrink-your-go-binaries-with-this-on...

[marcus_holmes]

that's useful, thanks :)

[papaf]

At the moment the longest part of my deploy is copying the new executable to the server.

Do you use rsync [1]? I ask because most of my collegues don't and they take minutes to deploy what I usually do in seconds.

[1] https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man1/rsync.1.html

[cpuguy83]

Unless you are running these in containers, then that time adds up (assuming you are using go-based container runtime implementations, as most people are).