this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2025
100 points (100.0% liked)

Selfhosted

52332 readers
575 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Hey folks!

It's been a year and a half since I last posted about my self-hosted photo gallery here with release v0.15.0.

If you are happy with Immich that's great! I'm mostly having some fun here and the more the merrier, right? :)

See link for the release notes since v0.15 or just skip to the demo.

Happy to hear any feedback, ideas, suggestions, or comments :)

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TCB13@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Exactly my situation. Thanks @mlunar@lemmy.world. The only way this could be done better was to do it in PHP / have fastcgi so it wouldn't require a constantly running background process specifically for it. People can say a lot of things about PHP, but nothing beats the fastcgi model.

[–] mlunar@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I don't know a lot about fastcgi, but looking it up it seems like it also keeps a persistent process running to avoid execution overhead, but I don't know how that process is managed 🤷‍♂️

Either way, you could use a supervisor of sorts that shuts down the process/container after some idle time (at least for containers I know some exist) and that should probably work fine (outside of interrupting scanning operations).

I haven't tried it myself yet though :)

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

don’t know a lot about fastcgi, but looking it up it seems like it also keeps a persistent process running to avoid execution overhead

More of less, the good thing about PHP + fastcgi is that it keeps a configure amount of minimum persistent processes (plus a dynamic number) to avoid execution overhead like you said... now there's an important detail, PHP processes are generic, meaning if you've 50 apps hosted in your server they can all be served with just one persistent process. No need to spin up 50 processes for each app like with node/go etc.

Supervisors shutting down containers/processes are good, but starting up is slow compared to the single PHP idle process ready to go for any app. :)

[–] mlunar@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Thanks for the explanation, makes sense! This app relies quite heavily on in-memory caches, so it's somewhat incompatible with that model :)

That said, I wonder if the startup time would be noticeable. Depends a lot on the configuration, but it shouldn't take more than a few 100ms (esp. if you use skip_collection_counts).

[–] TCB13@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not really incompatible, PHP provides configurable shared memory across processes that survive even if fastcgi releases every process and just keeps something idle for new requests.

[–] mlunar@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Oh interesting! Thanks for explaining :)