7 ms·

This is a valid point, but definitely a misleading title.

codervinod 4y ago
I have updated the title to remove confusion. Thanks for calling it out. There was no intention to mislead the community.
capableweb 4y ago
How is it misleading? The entire post reads like a PR piece for their company, but the title seems faithful.
- golergka 4y ago
  They didn't delete a part of container, they deleted a part of the docker file. Actually removing data from already built container image, as title suggests, would be much more impressive.
  - abdusco 4y ago
    Maybe this would help in that regard: https://github.com/docker-slim/docker-slim https://github.com/docker-slim/docker-slim
    - codervinod 4y ago
      Docker slim would help in limited ways. EBF filtering fails at scale and has I here t limitations.
  - capableweb 4y ago
    Yeah, I guess that's true. The final result is a 78% smaller docker image, not container. But the way they achieve it, is by running a container of the image, running the functional test suite, then remove everything that was unused when the test suite ran, creating a new image from the results of the removal. I don't think the title is purposefully misleading, it's just incorrect by mistake (confusing image/container).
    - golergka 4y ago
      TBH, I thought that they would delete a part of a running container, something to do with de-allocating memory pages in runtime and all that low-level C magic, but now I see that it was just a really weird way to read this on my part.
      - cycomachead 4y ago
        No I read it that way too.
    - tluyben2 4y ago
      > then remove everything that was unused when the test suite ran What tooling does one use to determine this? How can you see what files are being hit or not? Ptrace? Edit; I RTFA and think that’s the product they sell. But how would one go about this without their product?
      - capableweb 4y ago
        My guess would be a combination of ptrace/strace/overriding libc and/or eBPF.
  - codervinod 4y ago
    We deleted files from a pre-built container and not Dockerfile.
codervinod 4y ago
I would like to understand what’s misleading. You could download the container and compare sizes and binary with source container.

I have updated the title to remove confusion. Thanks for calling it out. There was no intention to mislead the community.

capableweb 4y ago

How is it misleading? The entire post reads like a PR piece for their company, but the title seems faithful.

golergka 4y ago
They didn't delete a part of container, they deleted a part of the docker file. Actually removing data from already built container image, as title suggests, would be much more impressive.
- abdusco 4y ago
  Maybe this would help in that regard: https://github.com/docker-slim/docker-slim https://github.com/docker-slim/docker-slim
  - codervinod 4y ago
    Docker slim would help in limited ways. EBF filtering fails at scale and has I here t limitations.
- capableweb 4y ago
  Yeah, I guess that's true. The final result is a 78% smaller docker image, not container. But the way they achieve it, is by running a container of the image, running the functional test suite, then remove everything that was unused when the test suite ran, creating a new image from the results of the removal. I don't think the title is purposefully misleading, it's just incorrect by mistake (confusing image/container).
  - golergka 4y ago
    TBH, I thought that they would delete a part of a running container, something to do with de-allocating memory pages in runtime and all that low-level C magic, but now I see that it was just a really weird way to read this on my part.
    - cycomachead 4y ago
      No I read it that way too.
  - tluyben2 4y ago
    > then remove everything that was unused when the test suite ran What tooling does one use to determine this? How can you see what files are being hit or not? Ptrace? Edit; I RTFA and think that’s the product they sell. But how would one go about this without their product?
    - capableweb 4y ago
      My guess would be a combination of ptrace/strace/overriding libc and/or eBPF.
- codervinod 4y ago
  We deleted files from a pre-built container and not Dockerfile.

codervinod 4y ago

I would like to understand what’s misleading. You could download the container and compare sizes and binary with source container.