4 ms·
Last time I looked at Windows containers the layers were multi-gigabyte downloads, is this still the case?
by SteveNuts 7y ago
Last time I looked at Windows containers the layers were multi-gigabyte downloads, is this still the case?
- mollyporph 7y agoThe windows server nano images are 96mb and the windows server insider nano images are around 63 i think
- wmf 7y agoYeah, although something called Nano Server is pretty small. https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/Containers/A-smaller-Windows-Server-Core-Container-with-better-Application/ba-p/382412 https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/Containers/A-smaller-...
- techntoke 7y agoStill significantly larger compared to most Linux container images, and even more so than something like Alpine.
- midnitewarrior 7y agoYes, agreed, it's amazing how many more feature Windows ships than Linux, and that's only the "nano" version!
- techntoke 7y agoLike what? I find that especially when comparing Nano Server and Linux, that Linux is much easier to manage and has nearly unlimited features that can be used or installed via a lightweight package manager when building your images.
- dillonmckay 7y agoIs Alpine 8MB containerized?
- techntoke 7y agoYes and roughly 3MB compressed.
- jacques_chester 7y agoThis different is pointlessly fetishized. Once layers are cached on a node they are cached on the node and it makes little functional difference to startup times. There's also the small matter of: nobody will help you with Alpine bugs or CVEs. You are on your own. For something like Windows, you can pay Microsoft for any level of care you feel makes business sense. Same for Ubuntu or Red Hat.