How I Cut a Docker Image From 1.2GB to 180MB

<h1> How I Shrunk Our Docker Images from 1.2GB to 85MB Using Multi-Stage Builds </h1> <p>Last month, a junior dev on my team pushed a Docker image to our registry. The CI pipeline

<p>A 1.2 GB image for a service that's a few megabytes of compiled code is one of those things everyone accepts until someone actually looks at it. Slow pulls, slow deploys, a

<p>When I started working with Docker, I made the same <br /> mistake most beginners make — I used the full base image <br /> and copied everything into the container without

<h2> The Problem with Fat Images </h2> <p>We've all been there: you pull a Docker image, and it's 1.2GB. You run a simple Node app, and the image is bigger than your entire OS.

<p>When I joined Ericsson's R&amp;D team as an intern, our development environment had a problem that every engineer on the team silently accepted as normal: spinning up a full

<p>Most people learn Docker by copying a <code>Dockerfile</code> that works, shipping it, and moving on. That's fine until the day a build that used to take twenty seconds

<p>"Works on my machine" is one of the oldest jokes in software, and it stopped being funny the first time it cost me a weekend. The code was fine. The environment wasn't. A

<h2> TL;DR </h2> <p>Modern WebAssembly codecs (MozJPEG, libavif, OxiPNG/imagequant, libwebp, gifsicle, SVGO) now run fast enough in the browser that you can ship a real