[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]
Re: [atomic-devel] Reducing the footprint of the Fedora docker base image
- From: Daniel J Walsh <dwalsh redhat com>
- To: Josh Berkus <jberkus redhat com>, Courtney Pacheco <cpacheco redhat com>, atomic-devel projectatomic io
- Subject: Re: [atomic-devel] Reducing the footprint of the Fedora docker base image
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 09:01:28 -0500
On 02/10/2016 05:13 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 02/10/2016 11:38 AM, Courtney Pacheco wrote:
>> If possible, I'd like some feedback on the work I did. Comments and
>> criticism are more than welcomed! I realize there may be some
>> controversy in terms of what I chose to remove and what I chose to turn
>> into weak dependencies, but I would like to hear your thoughts either
>> way.
>>
>
> First, thanks for doing this! It really shows a lot. I'd be really
> curious as to what's in the remaining 144MB, given that Alpine and
> BusyBox can get away with a userspace which is 25% of that size.
>
Well busybox supplies almost all of the executables in coreutils,
shadow-utils and a few other packages, as links to the same executable,
right there you are going to see a lot of savings.
The next step to shrinking would be to look for a few FAT apps,
Run
du -am | sort -n
And see what big files are in the container image, can we eliminate any?
Shrink any?
> As Dan points out, we can't necessarily dispose of DNF/Yum during the
> standard container build (i.e. Dockerfile). However ... could we
> remove them afterwards?
>
> I'm also wondering if tzdata will be a problem. Some applications,
> like webservers and database servers, do need the tzdata files, but I
> suspect don't have it marked as a dependency since they're assumed to
> "just be there". Would be nice to remove them when not needed, though.
>
[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[Thread Index]
[Date Index]
[Author Index]