nifi-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jeremy Dyer <>
Subject Re: Revisiting MINIFI-175; minifi-cpp Alpine Dockerfile
Date Wed, 26 Apr 2017 15:36:17 GMT
I'm all about smaller and alpine. To Aldrin's point I think we just wanted something out there
at first and fully expected to optimize later

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 26, 2017, at 11:29 AM, Bryan Rosander <> wrote:
> I'm definitely in favor of smaller images, especially given the nature of
> the subproject.  I think the MiNiFi Java image may be able to benefit from
> Alpine as well.
> Thanks,
> Bryan
>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Aldrin Piri <> wrote:
>> Don't think there would be any objections to going smaller with Alpine and
>> certainly makes a lot of sense, but I believe initial efforts were
>> problematic and there was a general desire to get a foundation going.  The
>> biggest issue was needing to navigate cross compilation of a given host to
>> the Alpine format which was something our processes are not quite up to at
>> this juncture.  The integrated dev setup in the image avoided having to
>> tackle this and allowed building of the image on any system where Docker
>> could run whether natively or via one of the Docker for $OS setups.
>> Hadn't actually been aware of the multi-stage docker builds before this
>> thread, but certainly seems like a great application after looking through
>> the associated PRs and docs and could be a more immediate win for the
>> particular case above.
>> We could and should certainly strive to make components pluggable, in this
>> case logging, to support such cases where things may be problematic given a
>> target environment.  I don't think I'd be in favor of removing spdlog at
>> this point but could apply similar approaches used elsewhere in the
>> codebase to give us a little more configurability to use an alternate
>> implementation.
>> Would be in favor of opening up an issue to optimize our Docker build and
>> certainly target Alpine with some of the new build magic.  By the time we
>> have it implemented, the multi-stage builds should likely be sufficiently
>> available.
>> On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 10:19 AM, Andrew Christianson <
>>> wrote:
>>> Have we considered porting the current Dockerfile from Ubuntu to Alpine?
>>> The ubuntu image, especially with all the build-time deps left in the
>> final
>>> image, is quite bloated. This runs against the design intent of minimal
>>> footprint in minifi-cpp. Further, the new multi-stage Docker builds would
>>> allow us to isolate the build environment in its own stage and allow only
>>> runtime deps to exist in the final image. Overall it would be a much
>>> smaller image.
>>> Reviewing the JIRA activity for MINIFI-175, it seems the decision to not
>>> use alpine was originally due to the desire to encapsulate the build of
>>> minifi inside the build of the docker image, which for some reason wasn't
>>> compatible with using alpine. On initial testing, it seems alpine's musl
>>> libc has issues with spdlog. Since it may involve some effort and
>> decision
>>> making with regard to which dependencies are used, this is a decision
>>> probably best made by the community.
>>> Thoughts?

View raw message