I’m currently researching the best method for running a static website from Docker.

The site consists of one single HTML file, a bunch of CSS files, and a few JS files. On server-side nothing needs to be preprocessed. The website uses JS to request some JSON files, though. Handling of the files is doing via client-side JS, the server only need to - serve the files.

The website is intended to be used as selfhosted web application and is quite niche so there won’t be much load and not many concurrent users.

I boiled it down to the following options:

  1. BusyBox in a selfmade Docker container, manually running httpd or The smallest Docker image …
  2. php:latest (ignoring the fact, that the built-in webserver is meant for development and not for production)
  3. Nginx serving the files (but this)

For all of the variants I found information online. From the options I found I actually prefer the BusyBox route because it seems the cleanest with the least amount of overhead (I just need to serve the files, the rest is done on the client).

Do you have any other ideas? How do you host static content?

  • marcos@lemmy.worldEnglish
    10·
    9 months ago

    The answer is get a minimum linux image, add nginx or apache, and put your content on the relevant place. (Basically, your third option.)

    Do not bother about the future of nginx. Changing the web server on that image is the easiest thing in the world.

  • sudneo@lemmy.worldEnglish
    3·
    9 months ago

    I personally package the files in a scratch or distroless image and use https://github.com/static-web-server/static-web-server, which is a rust server, quite tiny. This is very similar to nginx or httpd, but the static nature of the binary removes clutter, reduces attack surface (because you can use smaller images) and reduces the size of the image.

    • 𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘬@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      1·
      9 months ago

      Thanks, this looks actually pretty great. From the description it’s basically BusyBox httpd but with Nginx stability and production-readiness and functionality. It also seems to be actively developed.

  • justcallmelarry@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
    2·
    9 months ago

    I’ve always used an nginx alpine image and have been very happy with it.

    Not sure how this fork business is turning out and I have also heard conflicting opinions on wether to care or not…

    If you do wish for something simple that is not nginx I’m also very happy with caddy, which can also handle ssl certificates for you, if you plan to make it publicly reachable.

  • CetaceanNeeded@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2·
    9 months ago

    I just use nginx alpine, if freenginx proves to be the better option later it should be fairly trivial to switch the base image.

    • 𝘋𝘪𝘳𝘬@lemmy.mlOPEnglish
      2·
      9 months ago

      Yes, Freenginx should/would/will be a drop-in replacement, at least int he beginning. We’ll see how this works out over time. Forks purely out of frustration never lived long enough to gain a user base and attract devs. But it’s an “anti corporate bullshit” fork and this alone puts it on my watchlist.