LAMP / Grav : App smallest footprint ?

[timconsidine]

I have couple domains which need a small static files website.
I have done this with LAMP which shows in Cloudron AppStore as requiring min 256Mb RAM.
But interestingly Grav shows the same but has advantage of website design & page management built in.

Is there a way of comparing the load on my Cloudron instance of an app, and specifically is a LAMP deployment lighter, same or heavier than Grav ?

Just wanting to avoid bogging down my Cloudron instance with small low-priority app deployments.

[nebulon]

@timconsidine the number shown there is the default maximum memory limit set for an app. 256MB is the lowest we publish app packages, however this does not at all mean they will also consume that much. In fact this is only the limit when the system will restart them, since they appear to use up too much.

Generally it is very hard to predict memory consumption, as it varies greatly based on user patterns of the apps, so you can install the options and then after some time check the actual memory consumption of each one for your use-case.

As a heads up, for static websites there is also the surfer app, which is very lightweight as well.

Edit: I've moved this topic do the discuss section of the forum since it may be useful for others as well and is not specific to any one app.

[murgero]

@timconsidine Speaking specifically to PHP based apps, LAMP is probably heavier CPU wise depending on how the grav app is setup.

If you are only going to be using Grav, I'd setup the specific app for it, unless you plan to do development or using a different version of Grav.

Also, depending on your hosting, it really shouldn't make that much of a performance difference if you run 1 Grav app or 5.

As for comparing resources used, you can install both Grav and LAMP apps and run them for awhile and check the system charts for RAM and CPU usage. (You can do this on the cloudron server via terminal as well using htop / docker commands)

[timconsidine]

@nebulon thank you
Understood
Yeah I forgot about surfer, will check it out

[timconsidine]

@murgero thank you
Yes, I guess somewhere in my dusty brain spaces I was worried about PHP as not the most efficient, especially when it's just static files. Although no PHP running in them, I was not clear what "app overhead" there might be affecting them.

I will do a trial Grav from Cloudron store

[A Former User]

@timconsidine If the idea is static sites, using Surfer + Static HTML+CSS+JS might yield better performance. You do lose the convenience of the UI Grav gives you though.

[timconsidine]

@atrilahiji thank you, yes.
I moved a LAMP with a basic landing page setup to Surfer.
Certainly seems like it should be a lighter setup.

Surfer seems good for static (html/css/js) sites which are static (rarely changing).

Grav seems good for sites which might need more content changes. Will try to monitor what resources Grav consumes.

Generally I am a fan of Hugo as SSG but Grav looks a slicker quicker-to-maintain option.