docker-library/python

Reduce size of python image

blueyed opened this issue · 7 comments

blueyed commented

I would suggest using ncdu / in the image to show candidates for purging.

E.g.:

/usr/share/doc: 82.3MiB
/usr/share/locale: 63.5MiB

A concrete example for purging would be /usr/share/doc/gcc-4.9-base/test-summaries.

Maybe localepurge could be used to only ship English locales in the default image?

Ref: #30 #37

yosifkit commented

Have you looked at slim? The slim versions are designed for those that want to minimize their footprint (docs), but they will need to install any system libraries.

As far as reducing the buildpack-deps image size, it could possibly be accomplished, but I think purging the non-english locales would be presumptuous.

dsikes commented

Hi @yosifkit,

I looked at the slim image and noticed that you are pulling in all of the make utilities and building python from source, which makes this image HUGE. Wouldn't it make sense to just include the pre-built binaries, and not including all of the make utilities? I know it would drastically reduce the size of the image. Having the build service included in the docker image seems a bit overkill to me.

  • 👍1
Deleted user commented

Maybe people wouldn't have to be presumptuous and try and remove 63 MB of non-English locales if the "reduced footprint" of the slim image wasn't contrived from a dockerfile that builds from source and then is released on the registry with all of the make/gcc/build utils still installed, sucking up additional space.. You guys should have your own internal dockerfile that builds from source, and then a released official image that includes something lightweight like wheezy or even jessie bare, with nothing but the pre-built binaries... IMO just a pure python container shouldn't be more than 150 MB... Who wants the footprint of any sort of build utils on an official image that is meant to just merely run an application.. it goes against the paradigm of containerization... 1 container to just do 1 thing and 1 thing really well... running a python app is the one thing.. not building python from source and then running the python app on the same server... Just My Opinion...

  • 👍3
yosifkit commented

@dsikes and @appcontainers, none of those build packages are kept in the final image: slim/Dockerfile#L55. The only things kept are: ca-certs, libsqlite3, and libssl (slim/Dockerfile#L11-13).

$ docker images
REPOSITORY          TAG                 IMAGE ID            CREATED             VIRTUAL SIZE
python              3.4.3               2916985fe29a        3 days ago          683.3 MB
python              3.4.3-slim          721d6f4d1230        3 days ago          215.2 MB
debian              jessie                9a61b6b1315e        3 days ago          125.2 MB

I would welcome a PR making a smaller python based on debian:jessie using the upstream recommended install method (ie from source for unix/linux: https://www.python.org/downloads/release/python-343/)

macropin commented

While you're at it how about removing the wheel package. There is no point to caching wheels in a Docker image.

tianon commented

Is this issue still relevant now that we have both a slim and a supertiny alpine variant?

$ docker images python
REPOSITORY          TAG                 IMAGE ID            CREATED             SIZE
python              3-alpine            956bddfd0b6c        3 days ago          89.42 MB
python              3-slim              c22a44a1fc6c        9 days ago          218.4 MB
python              3                   af91e46ec581        9 days ago          689.1 MB
blueyed commented

I think that it improved enough to close this issue.

Thanks!