Does smaller image means faster resource handling in this case? I had a problem using alpine before (can't exactly remember what it is, sorry) and had to switch to ubuntu based image. It can handle resource as fast as alpine except that the image size is larger, compatibility wise ubuntu based image is much better. So to me, I prefer higher compatibility over image size.
The cleanest approach would be a docker multi stage build. You can take whatever image you need for the build, then build the application in it. Afterwards you create your running image with an alpine version and take the deployment artifact (hopefully a single js file) from the building container and just run it.
"I prefer higher compatibility over image size."
-> higher compatibility would mean a bigger security attack surface. With multi stage you can have the best out of both worlds :)
Does smaller image means faster resource handling in this case? I had a problem using alpine before (can't exactly remember what it is, sorry) and had to switch to ubuntu based image. It can handle resource as fast as alpine except that the image size is larger, compatibility wise ubuntu based image is much better. So to me, I prefer higher compatibility over image size.
The cleanest approach would be a docker multi stage build. You can take whatever image you need for the build, then build the application in it. Afterwards you create your running image with an alpine version and take the deployment artifact (hopefully a single js file) from the building container and just run it.
"I prefer higher compatibility over image size."
-> higher compatibility would mean a bigger security attack surface. With multi stage you can have the best out of both worlds :)
docs.docker.com/develop/develop-im...