Best Build Workflow for Node and Docker











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












For node applications, what is the better option for building lightweight images?





  1. Single Docker Image. Might require build tools and would expose all build time environment variables to the container.



    yarn install # install deps and devDeps
    yarn build # build our application
    yarn test # perform tests
    yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline # Remove devDeps
    rm -rf src # Remove source files
    yarn start



  2. Multiple Docker Images



    In one docker container that has build tools, do the:



    yarn install
    yarn build
    yarn test


    Then take the build assets and package.json, and copy them into a new container which would have only runtime environment variables. The result is a much smaller image (perhaps node:alpine) that has only very limited source files.



    yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline
    yarn start











share|improve this question
























  • If you're aiming for lightweight images, why do you think the first one could ever be better?
    – jonrsharpe
    Nov 21 at 19:59










  • I think the second option is better @jonrsharpe for lightweight images as they contain only what is neccessary to run despite the more complicated setup process. But I see so many projects use option 1, and I wonder if there is something I am missing.
    – simbolo
    Nov 21 at 20:11










  • So did you try either of them? What happened? Maybe other projects aren't aware of the options, or have different goals to yours?
    – jonrsharpe
    Nov 21 at 20:13















up vote
0
down vote

favorite












For node applications, what is the better option for building lightweight images?





  1. Single Docker Image. Might require build tools and would expose all build time environment variables to the container.



    yarn install # install deps and devDeps
    yarn build # build our application
    yarn test # perform tests
    yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline # Remove devDeps
    rm -rf src # Remove source files
    yarn start



  2. Multiple Docker Images



    In one docker container that has build tools, do the:



    yarn install
    yarn build
    yarn test


    Then take the build assets and package.json, and copy them into a new container which would have only runtime environment variables. The result is a much smaller image (perhaps node:alpine) that has only very limited source files.



    yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline
    yarn start











share|improve this question
























  • If you're aiming for lightweight images, why do you think the first one could ever be better?
    – jonrsharpe
    Nov 21 at 19:59










  • I think the second option is better @jonrsharpe for lightweight images as they contain only what is neccessary to run despite the more complicated setup process. But I see so many projects use option 1, and I wonder if there is something I am missing.
    – simbolo
    Nov 21 at 20:11










  • So did you try either of them? What happened? Maybe other projects aren't aware of the options, or have different goals to yours?
    – jonrsharpe
    Nov 21 at 20:13













up vote
0
down vote

favorite









up vote
0
down vote

favorite











For node applications, what is the better option for building lightweight images?





  1. Single Docker Image. Might require build tools and would expose all build time environment variables to the container.



    yarn install # install deps and devDeps
    yarn build # build our application
    yarn test # perform tests
    yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline # Remove devDeps
    rm -rf src # Remove source files
    yarn start



  2. Multiple Docker Images



    In one docker container that has build tools, do the:



    yarn install
    yarn build
    yarn test


    Then take the build assets and package.json, and copy them into a new container which would have only runtime environment variables. The result is a much smaller image (perhaps node:alpine) that has only very limited source files.



    yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline
    yarn start











share|improve this question















For node applications, what is the better option for building lightweight images?





  1. Single Docker Image. Might require build tools and would expose all build time environment variables to the container.



    yarn install # install deps and devDeps
    yarn build # build our application
    yarn test # perform tests
    yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline # Remove devDeps
    rm -rf src # Remove source files
    yarn start



  2. Multiple Docker Images



    In one docker container that has build tools, do the:



    yarn install
    yarn build
    yarn test


    Then take the build assets and package.json, and copy them into a new container which would have only runtime environment variables. The result is a much smaller image (perhaps node:alpine) that has only very limited source files.



    yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline
    yarn start








docker workflow devops






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 21 at 20:06









jonrsharpe

76k1098205




76k1098205










asked Nov 21 at 19:52









simbolo

4,20723675




4,20723675












  • If you're aiming for lightweight images, why do you think the first one could ever be better?
    – jonrsharpe
    Nov 21 at 19:59










  • I think the second option is better @jonrsharpe for lightweight images as they contain only what is neccessary to run despite the more complicated setup process. But I see so many projects use option 1, and I wonder if there is something I am missing.
    – simbolo
    Nov 21 at 20:11










  • So did you try either of them? What happened? Maybe other projects aren't aware of the options, or have different goals to yours?
    – jonrsharpe
    Nov 21 at 20:13


















  • If you're aiming for lightweight images, why do you think the first one could ever be better?
    – jonrsharpe
    Nov 21 at 19:59










  • I think the second option is better @jonrsharpe for lightweight images as they contain only what is neccessary to run despite the more complicated setup process. But I see so many projects use option 1, and I wonder if there is something I am missing.
    – simbolo
    Nov 21 at 20:11










  • So did you try either of them? What happened? Maybe other projects aren't aware of the options, or have different goals to yours?
    – jonrsharpe
    Nov 21 at 20:13
















If you're aiming for lightweight images, why do you think the first one could ever be better?
– jonrsharpe
Nov 21 at 19:59




If you're aiming for lightweight images, why do you think the first one could ever be better?
– jonrsharpe
Nov 21 at 19:59












I think the second option is better @jonrsharpe for lightweight images as they contain only what is neccessary to run despite the more complicated setup process. But I see so many projects use option 1, and I wonder if there is something I am missing.
– simbolo
Nov 21 at 20:11




I think the second option is better @jonrsharpe for lightweight images as they contain only what is neccessary to run despite the more complicated setup process. But I see so many projects use option 1, and I wonder if there is something I am missing.
– simbolo
Nov 21 at 20:11












So did you try either of them? What happened? Maybe other projects aren't aware of the options, or have different goals to yours?
– jonrsharpe
Nov 21 at 20:13




So did you try either of them? What happened? Maybe other projects aren't aware of the options, or have different goals to yours?
– jonrsharpe
Nov 21 at 20:13












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
0
down vote













If you want to build lightweight image for your application, keep in mind the following:




  1. Try to use alpine images, e.g. node:8.12.0-alpine as alpine images are lightest base os image. If you want to install packages, do RUN apk add --no-cache --virtual your_packages... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*


  2. Try to reduce number of layers by running multiple commands in same RUN statement, e.g. RUN yarn install && yarn build && yarn test && yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline && rm
    -rf src && yarn start


  3. Try to club commands that cancel out each other, e.g. RUN apk update && apk add ... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*. Here apk update creates a cache and rm -rf /var/cache/apk/* clears it. No need to run these two commands separately as they are cancelling out each others work hence no point in having two layers which negate each other and inflate the size of the final image.



Note: Having multiple docker files instead of one is not going to reduce the number of layers or shrink the size. It only gives you logical separation of tasks that you want to handle individually.






share|improve this answer























    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    });
    });
    }, "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














     

    draft saved


    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53419580%2fbest-build-workflow-for-node-and-docker%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    0
    down vote













    If you want to build lightweight image for your application, keep in mind the following:




    1. Try to use alpine images, e.g. node:8.12.0-alpine as alpine images are lightest base os image. If you want to install packages, do RUN apk add --no-cache --virtual your_packages... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*


    2. Try to reduce number of layers by running multiple commands in same RUN statement, e.g. RUN yarn install && yarn build && yarn test && yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline && rm
      -rf src && yarn start


    3. Try to club commands that cancel out each other, e.g. RUN apk update && apk add ... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*. Here apk update creates a cache and rm -rf /var/cache/apk/* clears it. No need to run these two commands separately as they are cancelling out each others work hence no point in having two layers which negate each other and inflate the size of the final image.



    Note: Having multiple docker files instead of one is not going to reduce the number of layers or shrink the size. It only gives you logical separation of tasks that you want to handle individually.






    share|improve this answer



























      up vote
      0
      down vote













      If you want to build lightweight image for your application, keep in mind the following:




      1. Try to use alpine images, e.g. node:8.12.0-alpine as alpine images are lightest base os image. If you want to install packages, do RUN apk add --no-cache --virtual your_packages... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*


      2. Try to reduce number of layers by running multiple commands in same RUN statement, e.g. RUN yarn install && yarn build && yarn test && yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline && rm
        -rf src && yarn start


      3. Try to club commands that cancel out each other, e.g. RUN apk update && apk add ... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*. Here apk update creates a cache and rm -rf /var/cache/apk/* clears it. No need to run these two commands separately as they are cancelling out each others work hence no point in having two layers which negate each other and inflate the size of the final image.



      Note: Having multiple docker files instead of one is not going to reduce the number of layers or shrink the size. It only gives you logical separation of tasks that you want to handle individually.






      share|improve this answer

























        up vote
        0
        down vote










        up vote
        0
        down vote









        If you want to build lightweight image for your application, keep in mind the following:




        1. Try to use alpine images, e.g. node:8.12.0-alpine as alpine images are lightest base os image. If you want to install packages, do RUN apk add --no-cache --virtual your_packages... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*


        2. Try to reduce number of layers by running multiple commands in same RUN statement, e.g. RUN yarn install && yarn build && yarn test && yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline && rm
          -rf src && yarn start


        3. Try to club commands that cancel out each other, e.g. RUN apk update && apk add ... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*. Here apk update creates a cache and rm -rf /var/cache/apk/* clears it. No need to run these two commands separately as they are cancelling out each others work hence no point in having two layers which negate each other and inflate the size of the final image.



        Note: Having multiple docker files instead of one is not going to reduce the number of layers or shrink the size. It only gives you logical separation of tasks that you want to handle individually.






        share|improve this answer














        If you want to build lightweight image for your application, keep in mind the following:




        1. Try to use alpine images, e.g. node:8.12.0-alpine as alpine images are lightest base os image. If you want to install packages, do RUN apk add --no-cache --virtual your_packages... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*


        2. Try to reduce number of layers by running multiple commands in same RUN statement, e.g. RUN yarn install && yarn build && yarn test && yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline && rm
          -rf src && yarn start


        3. Try to club commands that cancel out each other, e.g. RUN apk update && apk add ... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*. Here apk update creates a cache and rm -rf /var/cache/apk/* clears it. No need to run these two commands separately as they are cancelling out each others work hence no point in having two layers which negate each other and inflate the size of the final image.



        Note: Having multiple docker files instead of one is not going to reduce the number of layers or shrink the size. It only gives you logical separation of tasks that you want to handle individually.







        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Nov 22 at 12:47

























        answered Nov 22 at 12:41









        Cyclops

        90169




        90169






























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded



















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53419580%2fbest-build-workflow-for-node-and-docker%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            What visual should I use to simply compare current year value vs last year in Power BI desktop

            Alexandru Averescu

            Trompette piccolo