[throwaway894345]

It gets pulled once per host, but with autoscaling hosts come and go pretty frequently. It's a really nice property to be able to scale quickly with load, and small images tend to help with this in a variety of ways (pulling but also instantiating the container). Most sites won't need to scale like this; however, because one or two hosts is almost always sufficient for all traffic the site will ever receive.

[mr-karan]

I did mention that it's the OP's server which I presume isn't in an autoscale group.

Even then, saving a few MBs in image size is the devops parlance of early optimisation.

There's so much that happens in an Autoscale group before the instance is marked healthy to serve traffic, that an image pull of few MBs in the grand scheme of things is hardly ever any issue to focus on.

[throwaway894345]

Yeah, like I said, I'm not defending this image in particular--most static sites aren't going to be very sensitive to autoscaling concerns. I was responding generally to your reasoning of "the host will just cache the image" which is often used to justify big images which in turn creates a lot of other (often pernicious) problems. To wit, with FaaS, autoscaling is highly optimized and tens of MBs can make a significant difference in latency.

[mr-karan]

Noted, that makes sense. Thanks!

[tuananh]

could be very useful in serverless space as lambda do support container image now. the image will be pulled much more often.