[trenchpilgrim]

In the comments: People who didn't read the article assuming they were literally building 800GB images (the example in the article is an 11GB image that was amplified by copying behaviors)

[progbits]

In fairness the article is LLM vomit and could be two paragraphs, can't blame people for not reading it.

[guywhocodes]

The TLDR: > We tackled critical container image bloat on our Sealos platform, fixing a severe disk space exhaustion issue by shrinking an 800GB, 272-layer image to just 2.05GB.

They say they made a 800GB container image, so your issue is about singular vs plural?

Regardless, I don't really get why anyone would self report like this. Is next article going to be about how they don't encrypt passwords and when they accidentally dropped prod DB they could restore account from logs because it had the passwords in clear text?

[mejari]

>the example in the article is an 11GB image that was amplified by copying behaviors

It's not, it's an 800GB image caused by multiple full writes of an 11GB file into the image's layers. I read the article.