Docker Done Better: How I Reduced My Next.js Image from 3GB to 219MB

Chapter 1: What I did

I have been building my own project for 3-4 weeks now, and I just realized something after I launched my website.

The tech stack is built on Next.js, Node.js, Strapi, OpenAI, MongoDB, etc., and I am using Docker to containerize it.

Initially, I didn't pay much attention as I wanted to launch it ASAP, but now, when I am focusing on the storage consumption of the Docker images, then its off the charts.

My Next.JS Docker image is of size 3.01 GB

Yes, it's hilarious. Because I am doing it the wrong way.

---

The real culprit (it's me, I guess ):

My initial Dockerfile of Next.js looks like this

# Use official Node image
FROM node:22

# Create app directory
WORKDIR /app

# Copy package files first
COPY package*.json ./

# Install dependencies
RUN npm install

# Copy the rest of the project
COPY . .

# Build the Next.js app
RUN npm run build

# Expose port
EXPOSE 3000

# Start the app
CMD ["npm", "start"]

You can clearly see the issue here:

• The default node:22 image is Debian-based and large (~1GB+).
• RUN npm install installs dependencies and devDependencies in production, and you don't need devDependencies in prod.
• RUN npm run build is building and running in the same container.

How does it matter in production

It matters because the container image size directly affects speed, cost, security, and scalability - especially for real SaaS apps like the ones I am building.

Every time I push to GitHub, CI builds a Docker image, pushes to ECR, EC2/Lambda pulls the image

The entire image must be transferred.

If the image is 1GB+, then it means slow push + slow pull And in production, that means Slower releases, longer downtime during deploy, and slower blue/green swaps

With this image size (3 GB), if I try to scale to 10 containers in the future, that means 30GB of pull.

Huh, it's expensive.

---

The Solution

Yeah, its same Next.js app, no code changes, nothing else, just the change of Dockerfile, and the image size is reduced to 219 MB from 3.1 GB.

The real solution is this

# -------- Base Image --------
FROM node:20-alpine AS base
WORKDIR /app

# Install dependencies needed for some npm packages
RUN apk add --no-cache libc6-compat

# -------- Dependencies Stage --------
FROM base AS deps
COPY package.json package-lock.json* ./
RUN npm ci

# -------- Builder Stage --------
FROM base AS builder
COPY --from=deps /app/node_modules ./node_modules
COPY . .

# Build Next.js app
RUN npm run build

# -------- Production Stage --------
FROM node:20-alpine AS runner
WORKDIR /app

ENV NODE_ENV=production

# Create non-root user
RUN addgroup -S nextjs && adduser -S nextjs -G nextjs

# Copy standalone build
COPY --from=builder /app/.next/standalone ./
COPY --from=builder /app/.next/static ./.next/static
COPY --from=builder /app/public ./public

USER nextjs

EXPOSE 3000

ENV PORT=3000

CMD ["node", "server.js"]

• Smaller Base image FROM node:20-alpine
• Multi-stage build, because I separated the dependencies stage, the builder stage, and the production stage, which means that build tools will never reach the production image.
• COPY --from=builder /app/.next/standalone ./ This is HUGE, standalone contains only required runtime files, only required production dependencies, which removed unused packages, devDependecies and even unnecessary Node modules
• For security, I used `RUN addgroup -S nextjs && adduser -S nextjs -G nextjs USER nextjs. The old Dockerfile was running as root, but the new one runs as a limited user. So, if someone eill exploits your app, they don't get root access.

---

Real impact in Production

If traffic spike, the old Docker will spin up the container slowly, while the new one will be faster. The old Docker had more CVE's, but the new one has fewer.

---

Let me know if you have used a different approach for docker.