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: dev-unsubscr...@drill.apache.org For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: us...@infra.apache.org