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?

  • @jivandabeastA
    link
    fedilink
    English
    19 months ago

    Wait, really? I use NPM and also have two sites running via a separate nginx container – i feel so dumb now LMAO

    • lemmyvore
      link
      fedilink
      English
      3
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Yeah it’s not exactly an obvious feature. I don’t even remember how I stumbled onto it, I think I was looking at the /data dirs and noticed the default one.

      I haven’t tried using it for more than one site but I think that if you add multiple domain names to the same proxy host they go to the same server instance and you might be able to tweak the “Advanced” config to serve all of them as virtual hosts.

      It’s not necessarily a bad thing to have a separate nginx host. For example I have a PHP app that has its own nginx container because I want to keep all the containers for it in one place and not mix it up with NPM.