Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-07-14 Thread Muayyad AlSadi
BTW: I'm considering writing my own "supervisord"-like in go (to make it single binary) which unlike runit, s6 and others does not intend to be full init system (no ttys, no logs, no crons) just like supervisord, it just process supervisor that allow you to run multiprocess container. I'm

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-07-13 Thread Muayyad AlSadi
Try fake runtime which provides systemd (fake one indeed). On Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 11:55 PM Colin Walters wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 20, 2016, at 01:57 PM, Micah Abbott wrote: > > On 06/20/2016 09:38 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > > > Have we published any comparisons of an Alpine

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-07-13 Thread Colin Walters
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016, at 01:57 PM, Micah Abbott wrote: > On 06/20/2016 09:38 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > > Have we published any comparisons of an Alpine image "fully loaded" > > (e.g., with the actual tools) vs. Fedora, etc.? AIUI, when you actually > > install things like Apache httpd, or

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-07-13 Thread Muayyad AlSadi
I'll be happy if arg parsing is missing but the assumed default is nodocs On Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 11:47 PM Colin Walters wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016, at 04:40 PM, Muayyad AlSadi wrote: > > What about my question about the equivalent of "--setopt tsflags=nodocs" > > @walters

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-07-13 Thread Colin Walters
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016, at 04:40 PM, Muayyad AlSadi wrote: > What about my question about the equivalent of "--setopt > tsflags=nodocs" > > @walters does micro-yuminst assume this option https://github.com/cgwalters/micro-yuminst/issues/1 I'll rework the command line parsing soon to better

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-07-13 Thread Muayyad AlSadi
What about my question about the equivalent of "--setopt tsflags=nodocs" @walters does micro-yuminst assume this option On Wed, Jul 13, 2016, 11:25 PM Colin Walters wrote: > On Wed, Jul 13, 2016, at 09:40 AM, Tim St. Clair wrote: > > Awesome! > > Do we have a formal

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-07-13 Thread Colin Walters
On Wed, Jul 13, 2016, at 09:40 AM, Tim St. Clair wrote: > Awesome! > > Do we have a formal position, or is this still POC? Still a PoC, but I believe it'd be relatively easy for downstreams to productize. For example, we're using librepo[1] which is the same library used by dnf (and rpm-ostree)

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-07-13 Thread Tim St. Clair
Awesome! Do we have a formal position, or is this still POC? Cheers, Tim On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Colin Walters wrote: > ...3 weeks later: > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016, at 04:59 PM, Colin Walters wrote: > > > It does seem viable to create a `centosmin` image that in

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-07-13 Thread Muayyad AlSadi
does your minimal micro-yuminst assume "--setopt tsflags=nodocs" On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Colin Walters wrote: > ...3 weeks later: > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2016, at 04:59 PM, Colin Walters wrote: > > > It does seem viable to create a `centosmin` image that in some cases

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-07-12 Thread Colin Walters
...3 weeks later: On Tue, Jun 21, 2016, at 04:59 PM, Colin Walters wrote: > > It does seem viable to create a `centosmin` image that in some cases > uses different package builds (e.g. ensuring rpm doesn't > pullrelatively close in being min-coreutils + bash + yum. Some > postprocessing on the

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-06-21 Thread Colin Walters
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016, at 08:23 PM, Tim St. Clair wrote: > Can we finally address this image size issue? > > https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_medium=email_source=footer#!msg/kubernetes-dev/zGMa4QkC_QE/gR43SztlBwAJ > > I've sent emails about it in the past, and adoption is moving fast. There

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-06-21 Thread Muayyad AlSadi
for those, they can strip locales (see david link) how much would they save? On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 4:11 AM, Derek Carr wrote: > Why does 1 not matter? If a cluster orchestrator charges your container > for its image size, it would matter. There are some Kubernetes users

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-06-20 Thread Derek Carr
Why does 1 not matter? If a cluster orchestrator charges your container for its image size, it would matter. There are some Kubernetes users in the community that have that goal and want to charge local disk usage to the pod (including shared image layers). Admittedly, there are other users

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-06-20 Thread Muayyad AlSadi
I gave up shrinking locales because they compress will There are two use cases for small images 1. The on disk format, which is shared between multiple containers via layers 2. When export tarball and pass it. For 1. Fat does not matter and for 2 it also does not matter because ~100mb becomes

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-06-20 Thread David O.
A little self-plug: Here's how I do it: https://github.com/oszi/dockerfiles/blob/master/_base/make-rootfs.sh It's designed to run in a container of the same OS (F23 can build F24) so it can be built anywhere... Anyway, apart from systemd and locales I'm in favor of fat base images when an entire

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-06-20 Thread Muayyad AlSadi
given a fake-runtime, yum --nogpgcheck --installroot=$OSROOT --releasever=23 --setopt tsflags=nodocs install httpd I got the following [root@fedora osroot]# for i in . usr/lib/ usr/lib/locale/ usr/share/locale/ usr/share/i18n; do du -sm $i ; done 227. 109usr/lib/ 109usr/lib/locale/

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-06-20 Thread Muayyad AlSadi
>localedef --prefix $OSROOT --list-archive xargs localedef --prefix $OSROOT --delete-from-archive the line was localedef --prefix $OSROOT --list-archive | grep -v en_US | xargs localedef --prefix $OSROOT --delete-from-archive

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-06-20 Thread Muayyad AlSadi
> I hacked up some quick Dockerfiles for this particular example (httpd) and the end result is that alpine was still smaller - 8.652 MB vs. 232.8 MB you can use this trick to strip ~100MB localedef --prefix $OSROOT --list-archive xargs localedef --prefix $OSROOT --delete-from-archive mv

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-06-20 Thread Joe Brockmeier
On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 1:57 PM, Micah Abbott wrote: > > As this is just one example, it would still be interesting to see how > other apps compare. > Interesting, thanks for that. I would say this is an area where we need to improve, but we also need folks to show up with

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-06-20 Thread Micah Abbott
On 06/20/2016 09:38 AM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: Have we published any comparisons of an Alpine image "fully loaded" (e.g., with the actual tools) vs. Fedora, etc.? AIUI, when you actually install things like Apache httpd, or whatnot the comparison looks much closer. I hacked up some quick

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-06-20 Thread David O.
I've been building my own base images with dnf/yum using installroot. While I get better results, the images are still large and the biggest waste of space is systemd. I'm not sure what happened with fakesystemd or systemd-container but I liked the idea of replacing systemd with something that

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-06-20 Thread Muayyad AlSadi
I was socked by the size of the following file ls -lh /usr/lib/locale/locale-archive -rw-r--r--. 1 root root 107M Jun 8 11:07 /usr/lib/locale/locale-archive but I was socked more that even after stripping it the total compressed image size did not change at all (because more of the content of

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-06-20 Thread Joe Brockmeier
On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Tim St. Clair wrote: > My primary concern is mind-share and "precedent eventually leads to > practice". If all the images and examples presented say : > > ' FROM: alpine ' > > We've lost the hearts and minds of developers, and we are no

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-06-18 Thread Muayyad AlSadi
alpine is something like busybox, It does not use the true and tested gnu glibc, it uses musl instead. It has its use case which is different than fedora. Usage of Alpine in official docker images is also political decision because they have hired its main developer. The size of the base image

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-06-16 Thread Tim St. Clair
My primary concern is mind-share and "precedent eventually leads to practice". If all the images and examples presented say : ' FROM: alpine ' We've lost the hearts and minds of developers, and we are no longer a part of the conversation. On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 8:32 PM, Derek Carr

Re: [atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-06-15 Thread Derek Carr
I am sympathetic to Tim Hockin's perspective. I am not sure where the size versus value equation tips, but if I go to a restaurant for an appetizer and the menu only shows entrees I can see where folks like Tim come from with their request. It's hard to argue with someone that they should eat

[atomic-devel] Smaller fedora & centos images

2016-06-15 Thread Tim St. Clair
Can we finally address this image size issue? https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_medium=email_source=footer#!msg/kubernetes-dev/zGMa4QkC_QE/gR43SztlBwAJ I've sent emails about it in the past, and adoption is moving fast. -- Cheers, Timothy St. Clair tstcl...@redhat.com