Cloudron makes it easy to run web apps like WordPress, Nextcloud, GitLab on your server. Find out more or install now.


Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Bookmarks
  • Search
Skins
  • Light
  • Brite
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse
Brand Logo

Cloudron Forum

Offical apps | Community apps | Demo | Docs | Install
  1. Cloudron Forum
  2. Package development
  3. Alternative lightweight base image

Alternative lightweight base image

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Package development
21 Posts 5 Posters 590 Views 5 Watching
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • timconsidineT
    timconsidineT
    timconsidine
    App Dev
    wrote last edited by timconsidine
    #12

    In the spirit of sharing experience of using cloudron-minibase, I just updated my Community App rybbit.

    • 1st update was for latest rybbit upstream using cloudron/base : built app image was 5.29Gb
    • 2nd update replaced final multi-stage build with cloudron-minibase + Node : built app image is 2.51Gb.

    50% saving in app image size !

    Indie app dev, scratching my itches : communityapps.appx.uk, portfolio at myca.appx.uk

    jdaviescoatesJ 1 Reply Last reply
    3
    • timconsidineT timconsidine

      In the spirit of sharing experience of using cloudron-minibase, I just updated my Community App rybbit.

      • 1st update was for latest rybbit upstream using cloudron/base : built app image was 5.29Gb
      • 2nd update replaced final multi-stage build with cloudron-minibase + Node : built app image is 2.51Gb.

      50% saving in app image size !

      jdaviescoatesJ
      jdaviescoatesJ
      jdaviescoates
      wrote last edited by
      #13

      @timconsidine said:

      rybbit

      https://ca.cloudron.io/app/rybbit could do with a bit more of a description imho (and a working screenshot) πŸ™‚

      I use Cloudron with Gandi & Hetzner

      timconsidineT 1 Reply Last reply
      1
      • jdaviescoatesJ jdaviescoates

        @timconsidine said:

        rybbit

        https://ca.cloudron.io/app/rybbit could do with a bit more of a description imho (and a working screenshot) πŸ™‚

        timconsidineT
        timconsidineT
        timconsidine
        App Dev
        wrote last edited by
        #14

        @jdaviescoates will get onto it - thanks for the nudge - laziness during publication - sorry.

        Indie app dev, scratching my itches : communityapps.appx.uk, portfolio at myca.appx.uk

        1 Reply Last reply
        1
        • timconsidineT
          timconsidineT
          timconsidine
          App Dev
          wrote last edited by timconsidine
          #15

          Summary web page for the lightweight alternative, explaining what's in and what's out :
          https://communityapps.appx.uk/minibase

          Also in preparation for new cloudron base image supporting ubuntu 26.04, moving name convention from cloudron-minibase:0.0.x to tcmbp132021/cloudron-minibase:ubuntu24.04 .

          EDIT : minibase has a few extra components, so now 77Mb in size.

          Indie app dev, scratching my itches : communityapps.appx.uk, portfolio at myca.appx.uk

          1 Reply Last reply
          0
          • timconsidineT
            timconsidineT
            timconsidine
            App Dev
            wrote last edited by timconsidine
            #16

            A neat "trick" for those who are cautious about not building with official base image :

            FROM cloudron/base:5.1.0@sha.... AS builder
            # Ubuntu 24.04 β€” full toolchain: Node, Python, nginx, supervisor, etc.
            # Build everything here
            
            FROM tcmbp132021/cloudron-minibase:ubuntu24.04@sha.....
            # Ubuntu 24.04 β€” same glibc, same libssl, same everything
            COPY --from=builder /what/you/need /where/you/need
            CMD ["/app/code/start.sh"]
            

            The built image is in all senses a proper cloudron build in the builder stage.
            But the final runtime stage shrinks the image.
            There is a level of caution and attention need to ensure that all artefacts are copied in from builder.
            But you will soon know if anything is missing.

            Indie app dev, scratching my itches : communityapps.appx.uk, portfolio at myca.appx.uk

            1 Reply Last reply
            1
            • girishG
              girishG
              girish
              Staff
              wrote last edited by
              #17

              I looked into this a bit . We can't remove so many of the packages. Mostly, it's for sharing between all the packages..

              build-essential / gcc / g++, nginx-full, ImageMagick + GraphicsMagick, the whole -dev set (libssl-dev, libpq-dev, jpeg/png/xml, …), mysql/postgres/redis/sqlite/ldap clients, supervisor, git, vim, tini, yq, crudini, are still needed .

              I have a new image now which is basically those packages and the hub size is around 300MB. Already something which was 2.3GB. But of course, have to see how this plays out in practice on a cloudron with many apps (because we reduce the sharing).

              timconsidineT 1 Reply Last reply
              2
              • girishG girish

                I looked into this a bit . We can't remove so many of the packages. Mostly, it's for sharing between all the packages..

                build-essential / gcc / g++, nginx-full, ImageMagick + GraphicsMagick, the whole -dev set (libssl-dev, libpq-dev, jpeg/png/xml, …), mysql/postgres/redis/sqlite/ldap clients, supervisor, git, vim, tini, yq, crudini, are still needed .

                I have a new image now which is basically those packages and the hub size is around 300MB. Already something which was 2.3GB. But of course, have to see how this plays out in practice on a cloudron with many apps (because we reduce the sharing).

                timconsidineT
                timconsidineT
                timconsidine
                App Dev
                wrote last edited by timconsidine
                #18

                @girish 300Mb is still a world of difference, so I see that as very useful.

                As you say, the practical impact may not be huge in practice because of base image layer sharing.

                It’s all about build and push/pull times.
                And horses for courses. I may have turned tuned aggressively but even your slimmed list has some stuff which may never be used in some apps.

                For example a simple go site with data fetched from json, not even SQLite.

                Indie app dev, scratching my itches : communityapps.appx.uk, portfolio at myca.appx.uk

                1 Reply Last reply
                0
                • timconsidineT
                  timconsidineT
                  timconsidine
                  App Dev
                  wrote last edited by timconsidine
                  #19

                  @girish my last response was typed while waiting in an IKEA queue !
                  Better quality would be :

                  Really appreciate your feedback and the effort put into the 300MB 'slim' version, especially when your workload is so heavy with 10.x.x.

                  I guess the core difference is you are constructing a "platform package" while I was aiming at a "runtime only" image, with the inescapable consequence that the packager adds what they need for that specific app, even if that is more work for them.

                  For a platform package, your comments make total sense, and of course I defer to your experience and objectives. And 300Mb is a clear win over 2.3Gb with still quite a lot of convenience 'nice to haves' included.

                  My argument for excluding much of what you mentioned is :

                  • runtime package doesn't need much of it
                  • why include mysql and postgres when neither are needed for a specific app
                  • keeping a lean attack surface ( the less in it, the less that can be abused)
                  • it is rare that compile stuff is needed at runtime, maybe include that in a multi-stage "builder" stage then omitted in a final "runtime" stage.

                  For example, a simple Go or Python application that doesn't perform image processing should not be forced to pull ImageMagick or gcc just to run.

                  My cloudron-minibase does push a lot of responsibility onto the packager.
                  That may not be popular, but they don't have to use it ! πŸ˜†
                  And I totally understand a bit bigger image to meet your goals about platform experience is valuable.

                  As a test, I updated cloudron-minibase to include :

                  • tini and supervisor
                  • libssl-dev and libpq-dev
                  • yq and crudini
                  • nginx-full

                  This gives an image size for cloudron-minibase:0.0.2 of 77Mb.
                  (FROM tcmbp132021/cloudron-minibase:ubuntu24.04@sha256:ae1e4ab4343f9f9dff05b988db94c8936f8390b8d1e88db80a1ae7afde563aea).

                  This keeps the base significantly smaller than the 300MB version while providing the tools that 90% of apps actually need at runtime. For the remaining 10% (the ones needing heavy compilation or ImageMagick), the package developer can simply add those specific layers to their own package, build stage or runtime stage. Or simply use your future "cloudron/base-slim" if you decide to release one.

                  So actually I am totally with (a) following your guidance as to what is best, and (b) using a 300Mb image for simpler packages and (c) continuing to use the full cloudron/base of 2.3Gb where it is justified.

                  I didn't intend cloudron-minibase to be a disruption or a challenge.
                  The inital 50Mb was insane, unexpected, and I would still have been happy if it was 300Mb. So no problem at all using a 300Mb base if one becomes available.

                  Indie app dev, scratching my itches : communityapps.appx.uk, portfolio at myca.appx.uk

                  girishG 1 Reply Last reply
                  0
                  • timconsidineT timconsidine

                    @girish my last response was typed while waiting in an IKEA queue !
                    Better quality would be :

                    Really appreciate your feedback and the effort put into the 300MB 'slim' version, especially when your workload is so heavy with 10.x.x.

                    I guess the core difference is you are constructing a "platform package" while I was aiming at a "runtime only" image, with the inescapable consequence that the packager adds what they need for that specific app, even if that is more work for them.

                    For a platform package, your comments make total sense, and of course I defer to your experience and objectives. And 300Mb is a clear win over 2.3Gb with still quite a lot of convenience 'nice to haves' included.

                    My argument for excluding much of what you mentioned is :

                    • runtime package doesn't need much of it
                    • why include mysql and postgres when neither are needed for a specific app
                    • keeping a lean attack surface ( the less in it, the less that can be abused)
                    • it is rare that compile stuff is needed at runtime, maybe include that in a multi-stage "builder" stage then omitted in a final "runtime" stage.

                    For example, a simple Go or Python application that doesn't perform image processing should not be forced to pull ImageMagick or gcc just to run.

                    My cloudron-minibase does push a lot of responsibility onto the packager.
                    That may not be popular, but they don't have to use it ! πŸ˜†
                    And I totally understand a bit bigger image to meet your goals about platform experience is valuable.

                    As a test, I updated cloudron-minibase to include :

                    • tini and supervisor
                    • libssl-dev and libpq-dev
                    • yq and crudini
                    • nginx-full

                    This gives an image size for cloudron-minibase:0.0.2 of 77Mb.
                    (FROM tcmbp132021/cloudron-minibase:ubuntu24.04@sha256:ae1e4ab4343f9f9dff05b988db94c8936f8390b8d1e88db80a1ae7afde563aea).

                    This keeps the base significantly smaller than the 300MB version while providing the tools that 90% of apps actually need at runtime. For the remaining 10% (the ones needing heavy compilation or ImageMagick), the package developer can simply add those specific layers to their own package, build stage or runtime stage. Or simply use your future "cloudron/base-slim" if you decide to release one.

                    So actually I am totally with (a) following your guidance as to what is best, and (b) using a 300Mb image for simpler packages and (c) continuing to use the full cloudron/base of 2.3Gb where it is justified.

                    I didn't intend cloudron-minibase to be a disruption or a challenge.
                    The inital 50Mb was insane, unexpected, and I would still have been happy if it was 300Mb. So no problem at all using a 300Mb base if one becomes available.

                    girishG
                    girishG
                    girish
                    Staff
                    wrote last edited by
                    #20

                    @timconsidine said:

                    So actually I am totally with (a) following your guidance as to what is best, and (b) using a 300Mb image for simpler packages and (c) continuing to use the full cloudron/base of 2.3Gb where it is justified.

                    So the plan is use a new base image which will be 300MB and see how it goes. The dev packages are needed for many of the nodejs and ruby programs unfortunately. But it's a start and we can experiment a bit from here.

                    Really appreciate your feedback and the effort put into the 300MB 'slim' version, especially when your workload is so heavy with 10.x.x.

                    This was part of the 10.1 work. It brings a new postgres, dovecot etc. All good stuff πŸ™‚

                    timconsidineT 1 Reply Last reply
                    2
                    • girishG girish

                      @timconsidine said:

                      So actually I am totally with (a) following your guidance as to what is best, and (b) using a 300Mb image for simpler packages and (c) continuing to use the full cloudron/base of 2.3Gb where it is justified.

                      So the plan is use a new base image which will be 300MB and see how it goes. The dev packages are needed for many of the nodejs and ruby programs unfortunately. But it's a start and we can experiment a bit from here.

                      Really appreciate your feedback and the effort put into the 300MB 'slim' version, especially when your workload is so heavy with 10.x.x.

                      This was part of the 10.1 work. It brings a new postgres, dovecot etc. All good stuff πŸ™‚

                      timconsidineT
                      timconsidineT
                      timconsidine
                      App Dev
                      wrote last edited by
                      #21

                      @girish awesome !

                      Indie app dev, scratching my itches : communityapps.appx.uk, portfolio at myca.appx.uk

                      1 Reply Last reply
                      1

                      Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.

                      Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.

                      With your input, this post could be even better πŸ’—

                      Register Login
                      Reply
                      • Reply as topic
                      Log in to reply
                      • Oldest to Newest
                      • Newest to Oldest
                      • Most Votes


                      • Login

                      • Don't have an account? Register

                      • Login or register to search.
                      • First post
                        Last post
                      0
                      • Categories
                      • Recent
                      • Tags
                      • Popular
                      • Bookmarks
                      • Search