multirun VS tini

I recently switched to multirun [1] which in my case is superior to supervisor. I don't have to create any config files anymore, and it behaves exactly as i want it to: If one on the processes dies the complete container will die and docker's restart-policy takes place.

[1] https://github.com/nicolas-van/multirun

FROM cimg/ruby:2.7.1 ARG TINI_VERSION=v0.19.0 RUN sudo apt-get update -qq \ && sudo apt-get install -yq --no-install-recommends \ libxml2-dev libxslt-dev libtool pkg-config \ libbz2-dev libglib2.0-dev libxml2-dev libxslt-dev cmake \ && sudo apt-get clean \ && sudo rm -rf /var/lib/apt/lists/* /tmp/* /var/tmp/* \ && sudo truncate -s 0 /var/log/*log ENV BUNDLE_JOBS=4 BUNDLE_RETRY=3 RUN gem update --system && gem install rake bundler --no-document ADD https://github.com/krallin/tini/releases/download/${TINI_VERSION}/tini /usr/local/bin/tini RUN sudo chmod a+x /usr/local/bin/tini ENTRYPOINT ["/usr/local/bin/tini", "--"]

yes busybox httpd or civetweb is even smaller, both around 300kb.

for tini you mean https://github.com/krallin/tini? how large is your final docker image, why not just alpine in that case which is musl+busybox

Tini, a useful process manager for containerized apps

Ah gotcha. I believe it can be baked into images as well, per the entrypoint example in the readme: https://github.com/krallin/tini

Not sure how this will fare IRL in k8s as I haven’t much experience there. It’s still silly that this is the default behavior where you need something like Tini, but I digress.

To be fair, even for running a single process the pitfalls are real. I've been seeing Tini[1] a lot for these situations.

I just read in the README that Tini is included by Docker since 1.13 if using --init flag.

[1] https://github.com/krallin/tini

The default init process used is the first docker-init executable found in the system path of the Docker daemon process. This docker-init binary, included in the default installation, is backed by tini.