Better sparse image tar for podman #128
Conversation
|
This make build faster and it also means fewer temporary files. This is especially important because there is leak a buildpacks/pack#1167. |
|
this is based on findings of @vlk-charles |
This library uses the fact that uploaded tar may miss some layers when pushed to docker provided the missing layers are already in daemon. It works also with podman but the layers have to be present in the tar at least as empty entries. Signed-off-by: Matej Vasek <[email protected]>
matejvasek
force-pushed
the
sparse-image-podman
branch
from
e54beaa to
d200acd
Compare
|
for more reference containers/podman#8132 |
|
@matejvasek thanks for the PR! It would be great to get the same performance improvement with podman that we have with docker. Did you by chance happen to test this out against a docker daemon as well? I just want to make sure there is no unexpected performance impact (when reusing a large number of layers). |
|
I'll check that. |
|
@natalieparellano I tried to run build on Java mvn project using |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good to me! Thank you @matejvasek for the contribution!
It would be nice to be able to test this, but that would require some reworking of our doSave() method. I think we could leave it off for now.
@jabrown85 what do you think?
|
@natalieparellano will you or somebody else update the dep in |
|
@matejvasek we pulled it into the lifecycle (v0.12.0) so if you update the lifecycle in your builder you should see the performance benefit in re-using base image layers for exported app images. However pack should update imgutil to get the same benefit when creating builders. |
This library uses the fact that uploaded tar may miss some layers when
pushed to docker provided the missing layers are already in daemon.
It works also with podman but the layers have to be present in the tar
at least as empty entries.
Signed-off-by: Matej Vasek [email protected]