Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Increased (+50%) docker image size with v18.9.1 (from v16.16.0) #1776

Closed
patoi opened this issue Sep 27, 2022 · 8 comments
Closed

Increased (+50%) docker image size with v18.9.1 (from v16.16.0) #1776

patoi opened this issue Sep 27, 2022 · 8 comments

Comments

@patoi
Copy link

patoi commented Sep 27, 2022

Environment

  • Platform: Ubuntu Linux 22.4
  • Docker Version: Docker version 20.10.18, build b40c2f6
  • Node.js Version: v18.9.1
  • Image Tag: 18.9.1-alpine3.16

Expected Behavior

The v16.16.0-alpine3.16 size is 112MB, I expected that v18 image size is nearly same amount of MB.

node 16.16.0-alpine3.16 b1ca7421d2e7 6 weeks ago 112MB

Current Behavior

The v18.9.1-alpine3.16 image size is 167MB.

node 18.9.1-alpine3.16 f4e0e36b202c 19 hours ago 167MB

Possible Solution

Steps to Reproduce

Additional Information

@david-szabo97
Copy link

The /usr/local/include/node/openssl folder is now 50MB instead of 3MB. Is anyone familiar with that folder and could investigate why there is such a huge increase?

@SimenB
Copy link
Member

SimenB commented Nov 11, 2022

@nodejs/build is this known?

@nschonni
Copy link
Member

Build group does not support Alpine, it is fully unofficial support

@david-szabo97
Copy link

@nschonni

This affects non-alpine images as well. Just download Node.js 18 tar from node official site and untar it. You will notice that the include directory is 50 MB.

image

image

@patoi
Copy link
Author

patoi commented Nov 14, 2022

The /include/node/openssl/archs contains all distribution headers, I think it's unnecessary.

@richardlau
Copy link
Member

@nodejs/build is this known?

Yes, nodejs/node#42081.

@SimenB
Copy link
Member

SimenB commented Nov 14, 2022

Since that issue is closed, should we close this? The fix for it was included in nodejs/node#42943 from what I can tell. Or should we tweak something in our dockerfiles?

@patoi
Copy link
Author

patoi commented Nov 14, 2022

I think it can be closed because nodejs/node#45454 has opened.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants