Up next: how to serve a LAMP site from a single docker image
A tiny Docker image to serve static websites
111–120 of 156 posts
Re: A tiny Docker image to serve static websites
#112For static websites, is there any reason not to host them on GitHub? Since GitHub Pages lets you attach a custom domain, it seems like the perfect choice. I would expect their CDN to be pretty awesome. And updating the website with a simple git push seems convenient.
Wanting to own your own web presence is reason not to host them on GitHub. For static websites, CDNs are largely unnecessary. My potato of a website hosted from a computer in my living room has been on the front page of HN several times without as much as increasing its fan speed. It took Elon Musk tweeting a link to one of my blog posts before it started struggling to serve pages. I think it ran out of file descript…
Was it through a VPN? I feel like revealing my home IP to random people on the internet is a bad move.
Re: A tiny Docker image to serve static websites
#113For static websites, hosting them directly on S3 with cloudfront, or on cloudflare might be a better option?
How’s the free tier on aws for s3 and cloudfront? I can think of free alternatives that are equally as good if not better.
Re: A tiny Docker image to serve static websites
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
What value is that, for running such a simple piece of software?
A few off the top of my head. The ability to pull the image on to any machine without needing to clone the source files and build it. Smaller images mean faster pod starts when you auto scale.
Ok when you say a few off the top of my head it implies that there are a bunch and these are like some super obvious ones, but it sounds like this is actually only useful if you have a bunch of infrastructure set up to serve sites for projects and customers that need containerization and then you just throw this simple little static site docker instance in there because when you're maintaining a lot of docker instances it is just simpler to do?
Which seems like sort of an edge case for value adding, and makes me feel like it really doesn't add any value to do this unless you already are doing it for everything, and thus you really wouldn't be throwing out any value by just serving the static site without the docker overhead.
Re: A tiny Docker image to serve static websites
#115Well, this will definitely serve an unchanging static website. But unchanging static websites are just archives. Most static websites have new .html and other files added on whim regularly.
Re: A tiny Docker image to serve static websites
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
Docker adds other value to the lifecycle of your deployment. An "optimization" where you're removing value is just a compromise. Otherwise we'd all run our static sites on UEFI.
Redbean supports UEFI too. Although we haven't added a bare metal implementation of berkeley sockets yet. Although it's on the roadmap for the future.
oh wow are you justine?
i've been meaning to ask you this for a decade. whatever happened to when you wrote a blog with insanely irritating serifs that connected certain letters together? what was the rationale behind that? never seen it since
I'm insanely impressed by APE and redbean by the way, blows OP out of the water!
Re: A tiny Docker image to serve static websites
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wanting to own your own web presence is reason not to host them on GitHub. For static websites, CDNs are largely unnecessary. My potato of a website hosted from a computer in my living room has been on the front page of HN several times without as much as increasing its fan speed. It took Elon Musk tweeting a link to one of my blog posts before it started struggling to serve pages. I think it ran out of file descript…
Are you able to describe how you run yours? I scummed your blog but didn’t see anything about it.
You can serve massive amount of static requests from any potato really, it's a solved problem.
Re: A tiny Docker image to serve static websites
#118I love it! Can you add SSL though? Does it support gzip compression? What about Brotli? I like that it's small and fast so in addition to serving static files can it act as a reverse proxy? What about configuration? I'd like to be able to server multiple folders instead of just one?
Where can I submit a feature request ticket?
Re: A tiny Docker image to serve static websites
#119The only thing I would change: I would use Caddy and not thttpd. This way the actual binary doing the serving is memory-safe. It may well require more disk space, but it is a worthwhile tradeoff I think. You can also serve over TLS this way.
Re: A tiny Docker image to serve static websites
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
Docker adds other value to the lifecycle of your deployment. An "optimization" where you're removing value is just a compromise. Otherwise we'd all run our static sites on UEFI.
yeah see some of us still do this on OSes that haven't turned into a giant bloated hodgepodge of security theatre and false panacea software. docker has dead whale on the beach vibes. what value does it offer to those of us who have moved on from the mess linux is becoming?
Out of curiosity, what OS have you moved on to?