|
|
|
|
|
by deeviant
4259 days ago
|
|
Is minimizing the size of a docker image really the top priority? I would hold that making docker images easy to use, transparent as possible, reliable, versatile and easy to use (did I mention that already? oops) are far more important priorities. Admittedly, I use docker primarily for development/testing purposes and my use-cases are a bit different than the average production use-case, however, having a large toolbox easily accessible for me to use (yes, including the ability to ssh into the docker container) is invaluable to me. I may be missing something here, but racing to make docker images "as small as possible" feels like a bit of premature optimisation. |
|
However, I've seen (and am guilty of) a few of the pitfalls in the parent post. When you suddenly start adding 100mb+ unnecessarily to a Docker image, it can have some nasty ramifications in devspeed, and also deployments. A classic way to accidentally dramatically increase the weight of a Docker image is to apt-get install build-essential.
What kinds of ramifications you might ask? Well, I live in Australia. I don't know if Docker Registry has a CDN POP here, but that extra 100mb tends to take a solid minute or two longer for me to pull down.