Hacker News Reader

Why does the size of a base image matter? What happened to the shared layers between images? Did the new file systems completely sacrifice that?

The original filesystem (AUFS) used shared read-only layers, so if two images used the same base image, only their differences contributed to disk usage. I know there has been a lot of work to move to filesystems supported by more kernels, but if shared layers have been sacrificed, that makes me sad.

View on HN

> Why does the size of a base image matter? What happened to the shared layers between images?

It matters because when bootstrapping new hosts you still need to download all the base images, and because in many systems the base images can come to totally dominate the storage needs.

It still can often save a lot, but it's not enough for a lot of places where people want to use Docker.

It matters because when bootstrapping new hosts you still need to download all the base images

Why not just put those images in the snapshot/installer you're using to initialize those hosts?

If you need a library, you will download it anyway. But you can download it once, in base image, or multiple times. IMHO, the fatter _base_ image is, the better.

Ideally, base image must be full installation of everything, one large image for all. You will just download it, and it will just work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com