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?
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
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 (perhapsnode:alpine
) that has only very limited source files.
yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline
yarn start
docker workflow devops
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
For node applications, what is the better option for building lightweight images?
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
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 (perhapsnode:alpine
) that has only very limited source files.
yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline
yarn start
docker workflow devops
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
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
For node applications, what is the better option for building lightweight images?
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
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 (perhapsnode:alpine
) that has only very limited source files.
yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline
yarn start
docker workflow devops
For node applications, what is the better option for building lightweight images?
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
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 (perhapsnode:alpine
) that has only very limited source files.
yarn install --production --ignore-scripts --prefer-offline
yarn start
docker workflow devops
docker workflow devops
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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:
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/*
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 startTry to club commands that cancel out each other, e.g.
RUN apk update && apk add ... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*
. Hereapk update
creates a cache andrm -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.
add a comment |
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:
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/*
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 startTry to club commands that cancel out each other, e.g.
RUN apk update && apk add ... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*
. Hereapk update
creates a cache andrm -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.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
If you want to build lightweight image for your application, keep in mind the following:
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/*
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 startTry to club commands that cancel out each other, e.g.
RUN apk update && apk add ... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*
. Hereapk update
creates a cache andrm -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.
add a comment |
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:
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/*
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 startTry to club commands that cancel out each other, e.g.
RUN apk update && apk add ... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*
. Hereapk update
creates a cache andrm -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.
If you want to build lightweight image for your application, keep in mind the following:
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/*
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 startTry to club commands that cancel out each other, e.g.
RUN apk update && apk add ... && rm -rf /var/cache/apk/*
. Hereapk update
creates a cache andrm -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.
edited Nov 22 at 12:47
answered Nov 22 at 12:41
Cyclops
90169
90169
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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