jnturton commented on a change in pull request #2491:
URL: https://github.com/apache/drill/pull/2491#discussion_r823489048
##########
File path: Dockerfile
##########
@@ -56,17 +56,26 @@ RUN VERSION=$(mvn -q -Dexec.executable=echo
-Dexec.args='${project.version}' --n
# Set the BASE_IMAGE build arg when you invoke docker build.
FROM $BASE_IMAGE
-ENV DRILL_HOME=/opt/drill DRILL_USER=drilluser
+ENV DRILL_HOME=/opt/drill
+ENV DRILL_USER=drilluser
+ENV DRILL_USER_HOME=/var/lib/drill
+ENV DRILL_LOG_DIR=$DRILL_USER_HOME/log
+ENV DATA_VOL=/data
-RUN mkdir $DRILL_HOME
+RUN mkdir $DRILL_HOME $DATA_VOL
+
+COPY --from=build /opt/drill $DRILL_HOME
Review comment:
@vvysotskyi I don't think Docker is meant to duplicate data across
layers this way. I think that each layer is supposed to be stored as a delta
from the previous layer (even though it may be reported as having the
cumulative size of the layers up to that point). So the layer ordering should
not affect the size of the final image. Neverthess I have moved everything
that I could above the COPY in the Dockerfile and I do still worry about a size
blowup because when I list images I see 1.47GB for the image from this
Dockerfile, while pulling apache/drill:1.20.0-openjdk-8 gives me an image
smaller than 1GB.
```
apache/drill snapshot-openjdk-8 57306e5337db 3 minutes ago
1.47GB
apache/drill 1.20.0-openjdk-8 7479402ba1b3 6 days ago
983MB
```
--
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]
