Shrinking my static site
hampton.pw
Shrinking my static site
1–10 of 107 posts
Re: Shrinking my static site
#2This post says a lot more about the javascript ecosystem than Docker. Multi-stage image builds are nothing new or extraordinary, and in fact it's Docker 101. However, being forced to install 500MB worth of tooling and dependencies just to deploy a measly 30MB static website on nginx is something unbelievable.
Re: Shrinking my static site
#3This post says a lot more about the javascript ecosystem than Docker. Multi-stage image builds are nothing new or extraordinary, and in fact it's Docker 101. However, being forced to install 500MB worth of tooling and dependencies just to deploy a measly 30MB static website on nginx is something unbelievable.
How is that any different from build tooling for any other language? On my system, gcc with a bunch of commonly used dependencies requires just about the same space (and it's a full Linux system, not a trimmed down container).
Re: Shrinking my static site
#4This post says a lot more about the javascript ecosystem than Docker. Multi-stage image builds are nothing new or extraordinary, and in fact it's Docker 101. However, being forced to install 500MB worth of tooling and dependencies just to deploy a measly 30MB static website on nginx is something unbelievable.
How is that any different from build tooling for any other language? On my system, gcc with a bunch of commonly used dependencies requires just about the same space (and it's a full Linux system, not a trimmed down container).
> How is that any different from build tooling for any other language?
On the one hand yes, on the other hand it's a large amount of crap just to build a static site. `npm install @11ty/eleventy` pulls 600 packages and yields a 100MB node_modules folder.
Even Sphinx (whose scope goes way beyond static site generation) "only" pulls in about 75MB worth of stuff (a third of that being Babel) over two dozen dependencies (half a dozen being sphinx's own subcomponents).
Re: Shrinking my static site
#5This post says a lot more about the javascript ecosystem than Docker. Multi-stage image builds are nothing new or extraordinary, and in fact it's Docker 101. However, being forced to install 500MB worth of tooling and dependencies just to deploy a measly 30MB static website on nginx is something unbelievable.
How is that any different from build tooling for any other language? On my system, gcc with a bunch of commonly used dependencies requires just about the same space (and it's a full Linux system, not a trimmed down container).
Um... deploy the binary, don't build it in the image.
Re: Shrinking my static site
#6Why even have a docker image for a static site? If the site has to be built like this one then just put the output of the build process behind some webserver. We were doing this back in the 90s and didn't have to write blog posts about how not to make your site 400MB.
Re: Shrinking my static site
#7I use Hugo as my static site generator, single binary, no dependencies, generating hundreds of pages in milliseconds ... so reading this feels so wrong, I want to call it JavaScript masochism.
Taking a simple concept like a static site and adding a ton of complex tooling around it because it is the trend now?
Why would you even need a docker image to run a static website? The best thing about a static website us you can host it everyone without requiring any extra resources, like putting it directly to some CDN as files, etc.
Re: Shrinking my static site
#8Why even have a docker image for a static site? If the site has to be built like this one then just put the output of the build process behind some webserver. We were doing this back in the 90s and didn't have to write blog posts about how not to make your site 400MB.
amen brother
Re: Shrinking my static site
#9Sometimes you can get space savings on docker images from seemingly odd sources. For example, I found that running a chown command on files after they've been COPY'd in bloats the image size significantly (100s of MB). However, at some point Docker added a "--chown" flag to the COPY command which brings it back in line.
Re: Shrinking my static site
#10This post says a lot more about the javascript ecosystem than Docker. Multi-stage image builds are nothing new or extraordinary, and in fact it's Docker 101. However, being forced to install 500MB worth of tooling and dependencies just to deploy a measly 30MB static website on nginx is something unbelievable.
How is that any different from build tooling for any other language? On my system, gcc with a bunch of commonly used dependencies requires just about the same space (and it's a full Linux system, not a trimmed down container).
Obvious: Because GCC is a compiler not a runtime. Node is a runtime. You (usually) don't ship the compiler.
Less obvious: You probably wont need Nginx, especially for small static files, in languages where the native servers are fast enough (e.g. http.FileServer)