[Pharo-users] Smallest docker image for pharo >=7 ?

[Hernán Morales Durand]

Hi guys,

Because I am lazy and want to avoid searching through all DockerHub
repository pages... Do you know a Dockerfile to generate the smallest
possible docker image for Pharo?

I am also interested in which stage you use to install packages into the
image, and why? Do you copy the contained image into docker already built?
or do you prefer install packages on building? (as done by pip -r
requirements.txt)
Anyone using xpra binding from subuser [1]?
Anyone could make it work Pharo on Alpine since it uses different libc?

Anyway sharing opinions would be also appreciated.

[1] http://subuser.org/news/0.3.html

Cheers.

Hernán

Re: [Pharo-users] Smallest docker image for pharo >=7 ?

[Pierce Ng]

On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 04:07:49AM -0300, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
> Because I am lazy and want to avoid searching through all DockerHub
> repository pages... Do you know a Dockerfile to generate the smallest
> possible docker image for Pharo?
> Anyone could make it work Pharo on Alpine since it uses different libc?

Hi Hernán,

Please see following links:

- https://github.com/pharo-contributions/Docker-Alpine
- https://hub.docker.com/r/pierceng/pharovm-alpine
- https://hub.docker.com/r/pierceng/pharo7-alpine
- https://www.samadhiweb.com/blog/2019.07.20.alpine.pharo.minimal.html
- https://www.samadhiweb.com/blog/2019.08.11.minimizing.pharo.html

The Alpine-based VM can be made smaller by removing unused/irrelevant
modules.

Image-wise, currently I am using Pharo 7 minimal, which is just under
30MB, and that forms the lower bound of the Pharo image size.

However there is also the Pharo Candle effort that aims to make really
small images, which I hope to try out soon.

> I am also interested in which stage you use to install packages into the
> image, and why? Do you copy the contained image into docker already built?

For Pharo, I start with the regular or minimal image, then load my
packages. 

For Docker, I first build a container image for the VM only. Using that
I build a new container image from the Pharo image and other required
files.

> [1] http://subuser.org/news/0.3.html

Interesting. I use Firejail for big programs such as Chromium.

Pierce

Re: [Pharo-users] Smallest docker image for pharo >=7 ?

[Norbert Hartl]

Hi,

> Am 14.10.2019 um 09:07 schrieb Hernán Morales Durand 
> :
> 
> Hi guys,
> 
> Because I am lazy and want to avoid searching through all DockerHub 
> repository pages... Do you know a Dockerfile to generate the smallest 
> possible docker image for Pharo?

Please have a look at 

https://github.com/pharo-contributions/Docker-Alpine 


This was the first step in unify work on this. It’s based on alpine. It may 
need to be ironed out a bit as alpine has a different libc implementation. 

Further steps should include building a pharo minimal image to bring it down in 
size. 10 MB per docker image is theoretically possible.
> 
> I am also interested in which stage you use to install packages into the 
> image, and why? Do you copy the contained image into docker already built? or 
> do you prefer install packages on building? (as done by pip -r 
> requirements.txt)
> Anyone using xpra binding from subuser [1]?
> Anyone could make it work Pharo on Alpine since it uses different libc? 
> 

Building the docker image you can do either way. I have one public project 
where I provide the software as docker image. Doing this is easier when you 
build the pharo image inside the docker container. Because you can then use 
dockerhub [1] to build it. You just add your project there and it builds it and 
releases it.

In our inhouse products I use building the image outside of the docker 
container. The process is building the product image then load the test code 
and test it and when everything is fine use the image and package as a docker 
image. 

I don’t know subuser but using xpra will bloat the docker image because AFAIK 
it works over X11 which means you need those libraries in the docker container 
and in the pharo vm. What I’m working on is to be able to connect a running 
docker container directly from my laptop and use TelePharo [2] on it. 

Norbert
> Anyway sharing opinions would be also appreciated.
> 
> [1] http://subuser.org/news/0.3.html 
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> Hernán
> 
[1] https://hub.docker.com
 [2] https://github.com/pharo-ide/TelePharo 

Re: [Pharo-users] Smallest docker image for pharo >=7 ?

[Hernán Morales Durand]

El lun., 14 oct. 2019 a las 5:23, Pierce Ng ()
escribió:

> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 04:07:49AM -0300, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
> > Because I am lazy and want to avoid searching through all DockerHub
> > repository pages... Do you know a Dockerfile to generate the smallest
> > possible docker image for Pharo?
> > Anyone could make it work Pharo on Alpine since it uses different libc?
>
> Hi Hernán,
>
> Please see following links:
>
> - https://github.com/pharo-contributions/Docker-Alpine
> - https://hub.docker.com/r/pierceng/pharovm-alpine
> - https://hub.docker.com/r/pierceng/pharo7-alpine
> - https://www.samadhiweb.com/blog/2019.07.20.alpine.pharo.minimal.html
> - https://www.samadhiweb.com/blog/2019.08.11.minimizing.pharo.html
>
>
Nice! It works with latest minimal 7.0.4 too.

BTW you used .sources whith seem to be for Pharo 7
(Pharo7.0-32bit-0903ade.sources), but when I tried with latest stable
minimal and for some reason requires the V60 sources:

$ docker run --rm --ulimit rtprio=2 pharo7_docker_alpine printVersion
Pharo cannot locate the sources file named /pkg/image/PharoV60.sources.

I found also another approach using rtprio=2:2 suggested from
https://github.com/ba-st/docker-pharo/blob/master/docs/rtprio.md (soft:hard
ulimits).

The Alpine-based VM can be made smaller by removing unused/irrelevant
> modules.
>
> Image-wise, currently I am using Pharo 7 minimal, which is just under
> 30MB, and that forms the lower bound of the Pharo image size.
>
>
The built image here is aprox. 99 Mbytes

REPOSITORY   TAG IMAGE IDCREATED
  SIZE
pharo7_docker_alpine latest  595b9ece26253 hours
ago 99.4MB

but I think you didn't sumed the .sources.


> However there is also the Pharo Candle effort that aims to make really
> small images, which I hope to try out soon.
>
> > I am also interested in which stage you use to install packages into the
> > image, and why? Do you copy the contained image into docker already
> built?
>
> For Pharo, I start with the regular or minimal image, then load my
> packages.
>
> For Docker, I first build a container image for the VM only. Using that
> I build a new container image from the Pharo image and other required
> files.
>
>
Thank you for sharing Pierce.

Hernán

Re: [Pharo-users] Smallest docker image for pharo >=7 ?

[Julián Maestri]

Example:
# Stage 1: Load the project on an empty image, in this case this is a
development image (should change to use a minimal image)

FROM basmalltalk/pharo:7.0-image AS loader
COPY load-project.st ./
RUN pharo Pharo.image load-project.st --save --quit

# Stage 2: Copy the resulting Pharo.image with our project loaded
# into a new docker image with just the vm
# start in a new stage to keep docker image minimal
FROM basmalltalk/pharo:7.0

USER root

WORKDIR /opt/app
COPY start.sh .
COPY --from=loader /opt/pharo/Pharo.image ./
COPY --from=loader /opt/pharo/Pharo.changes ./
COPY --from=loader /opt/pharo/Pharo*.sources ./

RUN mkdir logs \
  && chmod a+x start.sh \
  && chown --recursive pharo:pharo /opt/app

USER pharo
EXPOSE 8080

CMD ["./start.sh"]


The resulting image size is ~80mb including image, changes & sources
Reference: https://docs.docker.com/develop/develop-images/multistage-build/

As a side note, the final image size is not what really matters, if you
have 20 different images all starting from the same base image (eg
ubuntu:18.04) the base layer is shared among all images so the network /
disk usage is less than the total size of the image.

It's important to keep the docker image thin, but also to keep layers at a
minimum and not adding / removing stuff during the build, because those are
stored in the middle layers (multi stage helps to remove that).

Cheers.

On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 at 20:00, Hernán Morales Durand <
hernan.mora...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> El lun., 14 oct. 2019 a las 5:23, Pierce Ng ()
> escribió:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 04:07:49AM -0300, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>> > Because I am lazy and want to avoid searching through all DockerHub
>> > repository pages... Do you know a Dockerfile to generate the smallest
>> > possible docker image for Pharo?
>> > Anyone could make it work Pharo on Alpine since it uses different libc?
>>
>> Hi Hernán,
>>
>> Please see following links:
>>
>> - https://github.com/pharo-contributions/Docker-Alpine
>> - https://hub.docker.com/r/pierceng/pharovm-alpine
>> - https://hub.docker.com/r/pierceng/pharo7-alpine
>> - https://www.samadhiweb.com/blog/2019.07.20.alpine.pharo.minimal.html
>> - https://www.samadhiweb.com/blog/2019.08.11.minimizing.pharo.html
>>
>>
> Nice! It works with latest minimal 7.0.4 too.
>
> BTW you used .sources whith seem to be for Pharo 7
> (Pharo7.0-32bit-0903ade.sources), but when I tried with latest stable
> minimal and for some reason requires the V60 sources:
>
> $ docker run --rm --ulimit rtprio=2 pharo7_docker_alpine printVersion
> Pharo cannot locate the sources file named /pkg/image/PharoV60.sources.
>
> I found also another approach using rtprio=2:2 suggested from
> https://github.com/ba-st/docker-pharo/blob/master/docs/rtprio.md
> (soft:hard ulimits).
>
> The Alpine-based VM can be made smaller by removing unused/irrelevant
>> modules.
>>
>> Image-wise, currently I am using Pharo 7 minimal, which is just under
>> 30MB, and that forms the lower bound of the Pharo image size.
>>
>>
> The built image here is aprox. 99 Mbytes
>
> REPOSITORY   TAG IMAGE IDCREATED
>   SIZE
> pharo7_docker_alpine latest  595b9ece26253 hours
> ago 99.4MB
>
> but I think you didn't sumed the .sources.
>
>
>> However there is also the Pharo Candle effort that aims to make really
>> small images, which I hope to try out soon.
>>
>> > I am also interested in which stage you use to install packages into the
>> > image, and why? Do you copy the contained image into docker already
>> built?
>>
>> For Pharo, I start with the regular or minimal image, then load my
>> packages.
>>
>> For Docker, I first build a container image for the VM only. Using that
>> I build a new container image from the Pharo image and other required
>> files.
>>
>>
> Thank you for sharing Pierce.
>
> Hernán
>
>

Re: [Pharo-users] Smallest docker image for pharo >=7 ?

[Hernán Morales Durand]

El mié., 16 oct. 2019 a las 19:49, Julián Maestri ()
escribió:

> Example:
>
> # Stage 1: Load the project on an empty image, in this case this is a 
> development image (should change to use a minimal image)
>
> FROM basmalltalk/pharo:7.0-image AS loader
> COPY load-project.st ./
> RUN pharo Pharo.image load-project.st --save --quit
>
> # Stage 2: Copy the resulting Pharo.image with our project loaded
> # into a new docker image with just the vm
> # start in a new stage to keep docker image minimal
> FROM basmalltalk/pharo:7.0
>
> USER root
>
> WORKDIR /opt/app
> COPY start.sh .
> COPY --from=loader /opt/pharo/Pharo.image ./
> COPY --from=loader /opt/pharo/Pharo.changes ./
> COPY --from=loader /opt/pharo/Pharo*.sources ./
>
> RUN mkdir logs \
>   && chmod a+x start.sh \
>   && chown --recursive pharo:pharo /opt/app
>
> USER pharo
> EXPOSE 8080
>
> CMD ["./start.sh"]
>
>
> The resulting image size is ~80mb including image, changes & sources
> Reference:
> https://docs.docker.com/develop/develop-images/multistage-build/
>
> As a side note, the final image size is not what really matters, if you
> have 20 different images all starting from the same base image (eg
> ubuntu:18.04) the base layer is shared among all images so the network /
> disk usage is less than the total size of the image.
>
> It's important to keep the docker image thin, but also to keep layers at a
> minimum and not adding / removing stuff during the build, because those are
> stored in the middle layers (multi stage helps to remove that).
>
>
Cool!! Thank you Julián,

Cheers,

Hernán


> Cheers.
>
> On Tue, 15 Oct 2019 at 20:00, Hernán Morales Durand <
> hernan.mora...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> El lun., 14 oct. 2019 a las 5:23, Pierce Ng ()
>> escribió:
>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 04:07:49AM -0300, Hernán Morales Durand wrote:
>>> > Because I am lazy and want to avoid searching through all DockerHub
>>> > repository pages... Do you know a Dockerfile to generate the smallest
>>> > possible docker image for Pharo?
>>> > Anyone could make it work Pharo on Alpine since it uses different libc?
>>>
>>> Hi Hernán,
>>>
>>> Please see following links:
>>>
>>> - https://github.com/pharo-contributions/Docker-Alpine
>>> - https://hub.docker.com/r/pierceng/pharovm-alpine
>>> - https://hub.docker.com/r/pierceng/pharo7-alpine
>>> - https://www.samadhiweb.com/blog/2019.07.20.alpine.pharo.minimal.html
>>> - https://www.samadhiweb.com/blog/2019.08.11.minimizing.pharo.html
>>>
>>>
>> Nice! It works with latest minimal 7.0.4 too.
>>
>> BTW you used .sources whith seem to be for Pharo 7
>> (Pharo7.0-32bit-0903ade.sources), but when I tried with latest stable
>> minimal and for some reason requires the V60 sources:
>>
>> $ docker run --rm --ulimit rtprio=2 pharo7_docker_alpine printVersion
>> Pharo cannot locate the sources file named /pkg/image/PharoV60.sources.
>>
>> I found also another approach using rtprio=2:2 suggested from
>> https://github.com/ba-st/docker-pharo/blob/master/docs/rtprio.md
>> (soft:hard ulimits).
>>
>> The Alpine-based VM can be made smaller by removing unused/irrelevant
>>> modules.
>>>
>>> Image-wise, currently I am using Pharo 7 minimal, which is just under
>>> 30MB, and that forms the lower bound of the Pharo image size.
>>>
>>>
>> The built image here is aprox. 99 Mbytes
>>
>> REPOSITORY   TAG IMAGE IDCREATED
>> SIZE
>> pharo7_docker_alpine latest  595b9ece26253 hours
>> ago 99.4MB
>>
>> but I think you didn't sumed the .sources.
>>
>>
>>> However there is also the Pharo Candle effort that aims to make really
>>> small images, which I hope to try out soon.
>>>
>>> > I am also interested in which stage you use to install packages into
>>> the
>>> > image, and why? Do you copy the contained image into docker already
>>> built?
>>>
>>> For Pharo, I start with the regular or minimal image, then load my
>>> packages.
>>>
>>> For Docker, I first build a container image for the VM only. Using that
>>> I build a new container image from the Pharo image and other required
>>> files.
>>>
>>>
>> Thank you for sharing Pierce.
>>
>> Hernán
>>
>>
>

Re: [Pharo-users] Smallest docker image for pharo >=7 ?

[Norbert Hartl]

> Am 17.10.2019 um 02:00 schrieb Julián Maestri :
> 
> As a side note, the final image size is not what really matters, if you have 
> 20 different images all starting from the same base image (eg ubuntu:18.04) 
> the base layer is shared among all images so the network / disk usage is less 
> than the total size of the image.

The overlayfs does only help here with the disk storage that is not multiplied. 
As the image is a memory dump of an individual image nothing can be shared 
there. So if you have 20 images you have 20 times the heap. So a small image is 
actually important. The vm is different. It is the same static file which will 
be paged into shared memory and the vm binary should be shared for all 20 
runtimes. But the interpreter memory will not be shared so a small vm pays out 
as well.

Norbert

Re: [Pharo-users] Smallest docker image for pharo >=7 ?

[Tim Mackinnon]

I haven’t tried in a while, but in 2017 with PharoLambda I had a combined Pharo 
image and VM size if 21 mb using the early Pharo minimal (I recall it was an 
early 7.0 image ). I was loading a simple hello Alexa app, so not a ton of code 
(but it had Neo Json and other AWS libs as a dependency I recall).

I’m interested in trying these Docker experiments, so I’ll have to look at some 
point and see if I can get similar sizes.

As I scripted my build, I have the steps laid out. I recall there were many vm 
plugins not needed for a server install (sound etc) and I also ran a cleanup 
step in the image as there was lots of metacello stuff cached ... so I’m sure 
tinier is possible even without candle.

Tim

Sent from my iPhone

> On 18 Oct 2019, at 07:48, Norbert Hartl  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> Am 17.10.2019 um 02:00 schrieb Julián Maestri :
>> 
>> As a side note, the final image size is not what really matters, if you have 
>> 20 different images all starting from the same base image (eg ubuntu:18.04) 
>> the base layer is shared among all images so the network / disk usage is 
>> less than the total size of the image.
> 
> The overlayfs does only help here with the disk storage that is not 
> multiplied. As the image is a memory dump of an individual image nothing can 
> be shared there. So if you have 20 images you have 20 times the heap. So a 
> small image is actually important. The vm is different. It is the same static 
> file which will be paged into shared memory and the vm binary should be 
> shared for all 20 runtimes. But the interpreter memory will not be shared so 
> a small vm pays out as well.
> 
> Norbert
> 

Re: [Pharo-users] Smallest docker image for pharo >=7 ?

[Norbert Hartl]

Tim,

is there a document anywhere explaining how to do a lambda image?

Norbert

> Am 18.10.2019 um 11:00 schrieb Tim Mackinnon :
> 
> I haven’t tried in a while, but in 2017 with PharoLambda I had a combined 
> Pharo image and VM size if 21 mb using the early Pharo minimal (I recall it 
> was an early 7.0 image ). I was loading a simple hello Alexa app, so not a 
> ton of code (but it had Neo Json and other AWS libs as a dependency I recall).
> 
> I’m interested in trying these Docker experiments, so I’ll have to look at 
> some point and see if I can get similar sizes.
> 
> As I scripted my build, I have the steps laid out. I recall there were many 
> vm plugins not needed for a server install (sound etc) and I also ran a 
> cleanup step in the image as there was lots of metacello stuff cached ... so 
> I’m sure tinier is possible even without candle.
> 
> Tim
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
>>> On 18 Oct 2019, at 07:48, Norbert Hartl  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 Am 17.10.2019 um 02:00 schrieb Julián Maestri :
>>> 
>>> As a side note, the final image size is not what really matters, if you 
>>> have 20 different images all starting from the same base image (eg 
>>> ubuntu:18.04) the base layer is shared among all images so the network / 
>>> disk usage is less than the total size of the image.
>> 
>> The overlayfs does only help here with the disk storage that is not 
>> multiplied. As the image is a memory dump of an individual image nothing can 
>> be shared there. So if you have 20 images you have 20 times the heap. So a 
>> small image is actually important. The vm is different. It is the same 
>> static file which will be paged into shared memory and the vm binary should 
>> be shared for all 20 runtimes. But the interpreter memory will not be shared 
>> so a small vm pays out as well.
>> 
>> Norbert
>> 
> 
> 

Re: [Pharo-users] Smallest docker image for pharo >=7 ?

[Jan van de Sandt]

Hi Norbert,

Last year I did some experiments with Pharo Lambda functions, see:

https://github.com/jvdsandt/pharo-aws-toolbox/blob/master/doc/pharo-lambda-runtime.md


I didn't spend a lot of time on minimizing the image. There is still a lot
of room for improvement.

Jan.




On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 12:30 PM Norbert Hartl  wrote:

> Tim,
>
> is there a document anywhere explaining how to do a lambda image?
>
> Norbert
>
> > Am 18.10.2019 um 11:00 schrieb Tim Mackinnon :
> >
> > I haven’t tried in a while, but in 2017 with PharoLambda I had a
> combined Pharo image and VM size if 21 mb using the early Pharo minimal (I
> recall it was an early 7.0 image ). I was loading a simple hello Alexa app,
> so not a ton of code (but it had Neo Json and other AWS libs as a
> dependency I recall).
> >
> > I’m interested in trying these Docker experiments, so I’ll have to look
> at some point and see if I can get similar sizes.
> >
> > As I scripted my build, I have the steps laid out. I recall there were
> many vm plugins not needed for a server install (sound etc) and I also ran
> a cleanup step in the image as there was lots of metacello stuff cached ...
> so I’m sure tinier is possible even without candle.
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> >>> On 18 Oct 2019, at 07:48, Norbert Hartl  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>  Am 17.10.2019 um 02:00 schrieb Julián Maestri :
> >>>
> >>> As a side note, the final image size is not what really matters, if
> you have 20 different images all starting from the same base image (eg
> ubuntu:18.04) the base layer is shared among all images so the network /
> disk usage is less than the total size of the image.
> >>
> >> The overlayfs does only help here with the disk storage that is not
> multiplied. As the image is a memory dump of an individual image nothing
> can be shared there. So if you have 20 images you have 20 times the heap.
> So a small image is actually important. The vm is different. It is the same
> static file which will be paged into shared memory and the vm binary should
> be shared for all 20 runtimes. But the interpreter memory will not be
> shared so a small vm pays out as well.
> >>
> >> Norbert
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>

-- 
Jan van de Sandt
gsm: +31 (0)6 3039 5998

Re: [Pharo-users] Smallest docker image for pharo >=7 ?

[Tim Mackinnon]

Hi Norbert - it’s all in the gitlab repo (the idea was to fork it and configure 
your own pipeline e vars)

However the key stuff was in the scripts dir, and this file - /scripts/build.sh

Which also loads some .st files for image fix ups .

Tim

Sent from my iPhone



Sent from my iPhone
> On 18 Oct 2019, at 16:07, Jan van de Sandt  wrote:
> 
> Hi Norbert,
> 
> Last year I did some experiments with Pharo Lambda functions, see:
> 
> https://github.com/jvdsandt/pharo-aws-toolbox/blob/master/doc/pharo-lambda-runtime.md
>  
> 
> I didn't spend a lot of time on minimizing the image. There is still a lot of 
> room for improvement.
> 
> Jan.
> 
> 
>  
> 
>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 12:30 PM Norbert Hartl  wrote:
>> Tim,
>> 
>> is there a document anywhere explaining how to do a lambda image?
>> 
>> Norbert
>> 
>> > Am 18.10.2019 um 11:00 schrieb Tim Mackinnon :
>> > 
>> > I haven’t tried in a while, but in 2017 with PharoLambda I had a combined 
>> > Pharo image and VM size if 21 mb using the early Pharo minimal (I recall 
>> > it was an early 7.0 image ). I was loading a simple hello Alexa app, so 
>> > not a ton of code (but it had Neo Json and other AWS libs as a dependency 
>> > I recall).
>> > 
>> > I’m interested in trying these Docker experiments, so I’ll have to look at 
>> > some point and see if I can get similar sizes.
>> > 
>> > As I scripted my build, I have the steps laid out. I recall there were 
>> > many vm plugins not needed for a server install (sound etc) and I also ran 
>> > a cleanup step in the image as there was lots of metacello stuff cached 
>> > ... so I’m sure tinier is possible even without candle.
>> > 
>> > Tim
>> > 
>> > Sent from my iPhone
>> > 
>> >>> On 18 Oct 2019, at 07:48, Norbert Hartl  wrote:
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>> >>> 
>>  Am 17.10.2019 um 02:00 schrieb Julián Maestri :
>> >>> 
>> >>> As a side note, the final image size is not what really matters, if you 
>> >>> have 20 different images all starting from the same base image (eg 
>> >>> ubuntu:18.04) the base layer is shared among all images so the network / 
>> >>> disk usage is less than the total size of the image.
>> >> 
>> >> The overlayfs does only help here with the disk storage that is not 
>> >> multiplied. As the image is a memory dump of an individual image nothing 
>> >> can be shared there. So if you have 20 images you have 20 times the heap. 
>> >> So a small image is actually important. The vm is different. It is the 
>> >> same static file which will be paged into shared memory and the vm binary 
>> >> should be shared for all 20 runtimes. But the interpreter memory will not 
>> >> be shared so a small vm pays out as well.
>> >> 
>> >> Norbert
>> >> 
>> > 
>> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jan van de Sandt
> gsm: +31 (0)6 3039 5998

Re: [Pharo-users] Smallest docker image for pharo >=7 ?

[Tim Mackinnon]

This is a better link: 
https://workingcopy.app/git/#path=scripts/build.sh&repo=g...@gitlab.com:macta/PharoLambda.git

Sent from my iPhone

> On 18 Oct 2019, at 16:18, Tim Mackinnon  wrote:
> 
> Hi Norbert - it’s all in the gitlab repo (the idea was to fork it and 
> configure your own pipeline e vars)
> 
> However the key stuff was in the scripts dir, and this file - 
> /scripts/build.sh
> 
> Which also loads some .st files for image fix ups .
> 
> Tim
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
>> On 18 Oct 2019, at 16:07, Jan van de Sandt  wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Norbert,
>> 
>> Last year I did some experiments with Pharo Lambda functions, see:
>> 
>> https://github.com/jvdsandt/pharo-aws-toolbox/blob/master/doc/pharo-lambda-runtime.md
>>  
>> 
>> I didn't spend a lot of time on minimizing the image. There is still a lot 
>> of room for improvement.
>> 
>> Jan.
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 12:30 PM Norbert Hartl  wrote:
>>> Tim,
>>> 
>>> is there a document anywhere explaining how to do a lambda image?
>>> 
>>> Norbert
>>> 
>>> > Am 18.10.2019 um 11:00 schrieb Tim Mackinnon :
>>> > 
>>> > I haven’t tried in a while, but in 2017 with PharoLambda I had a 
>>> > combined Pharo image and VM size if 21 mb using the early Pharo minimal 
>>> > (I recall it was an early 7.0 image ). I was loading a simple hello Alexa 
>>> > app, so not a ton of code (but it had Neo Json and other AWS libs as a 
>>> > dependency I recall).
>>> > 
>>> > I’m interested in trying these Docker experiments, so I’ll have to look 
>>> > at some point and see if I can get similar sizes.
>>> > 
>>> > As I scripted my build, I have the steps laid out. I recall there were 
>>> > many vm plugins not needed for a server install (sound etc) and I also 
>>> > ran a cleanup step in the image as there was lots of metacello stuff 
>>> > cached ... so I’m sure tinier is possible even without candle.
>>> > 
>>> > Tim
>>> > 
>>> > Sent from my iPhone
>>> > 
>>> >>> On 18 Oct 2019, at 07:48, Norbert Hartl  wrote:
>>> >>> 
>>> >>> 
>>> >>> 
>>>  Am 17.10.2019 um 02:00 schrieb Julián Maestri :
>>> >>> 
>>> >>> As a side note, the final image size is not what really matters, if you 
>>> >>> have 20 different images all starting from the same base image (eg 
>>> >>> ubuntu:18.04) the base layer is shared among all images so the network 
>>> >>> / disk usage is less than the total size of the image.
>>> >> 
>>> >> The overlayfs does only help here with the disk storage that is not 
>>> >> multiplied. As the image is a memory dump of an individual image nothing 
>>> >> can be shared there. So if you have 20 images you have 20 times the 
>>> >> heap. So a small image is actually important. The vm is different. It is 
>>> >> the same static file which will be paged into shared memory and the vm 
>>> >> binary should be shared for all 20 runtimes. But the interpreter memory 
>>> >> will not be shared so a small vm pays out as well.
>>> >> 
>>> >> Norbert
>>> >> 
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Jan van de Sandt
>> gsm: +31 (0)6 3039 5998