4 ms·

I use Hugo for a few things. I'd mostly recommend it. But in the worst case it can take minutes and hundreds of megabytes to update my blog to S3, even for a s

I use Hugo for a few things. I'd mostly recommend it. But in the worst case it can take minutes and hundreds of megabytes to update my blog to S3, even for a simple text change. Not amenable for quick updates, or updates in the field. You can add layers of tools to improve it, of course. But then you're back to it not being much different to wordpress + CDN.

theshrike79 7y ago
I think this is more of an issue with S3, not so much with Hugo. If your backend would be something else, you could use rsync to only move the changed parts, without uploading everything again.
- extra88 7y ago
  If Hugo is only changing the file with the text edit, awscli sync should only transfer the changed file to S3. If it's transferring all of them, it's because Hugo is touching all of them.
  - afandian 7y ago
    If you want to quickly check out on a new machine, you have to rebuild it all, and all will be synced. If you want to edit it online and use CI, you would maybe need to cache megabytes of state between runs. And that's for media files. For renderd HTML files, the smallest change could require rebuilding most of the pages. Unless I missed something obvious, that's quite a trade-off. It's not a criticism per se, just something from my experience which contradicts the orginal post.
eddieroger 7y ago
Updates in the field should be a solved problem with a CI/CD pipeline that is actually doing the work. I use Hugo to generate a few small blogs, but don't do any of the generation locally, nor uploading. Quick updates don't feel like much of a pain in these cases (update the file, commit, push), but agreed that on a big site it will be a bigger update.
- afandian 7y ago
  I do this too for some sites. But it's what I mean by adding extra tooling. You can do that, but it creeps closer toward something more Wordpress + CDN like.
  - eddieroger 7y ago
    Oh, I agree. I still prefer it for the relative smallness compared to needing a DB and such, but I am with you that it is creeping bigger.

theshrike79 7y ago

I think this is more of an issue with S3, not so much with Hugo. If your backend would be something else, you could use rsync to only move the changed parts, without uploading everything again.

extra88 7y ago
If Hugo is only changing the file with the text edit, awscli sync should only transfer the changed file to S3. If it's transferring all of them, it's because Hugo is touching all of them.
- afandian 7y ago
  If you want to quickly check out on a new machine, you have to rebuild it all, and all will be synced. If you want to edit it online and use CI, you would maybe need to cache megabytes of state between runs. And that's for media files. For renderd HTML files, the smallest change could require rebuilding most of the pages. Unless I missed something obvious, that's quite a trade-off. It's not a criticism per se, just something from my experience which contradicts the orginal post.

eddieroger 7y ago

Updates in the field should be a solved problem with a CI/CD pipeline that is actually doing the work. I use Hugo to generate a few small blogs, but don't do any of the generation locally, nor uploading. Quick updates don't feel like much of a pain in these cases (update the file, commit, push), but agreed that on a big site it will be a bigger update.

afandian 7y ago
I do this too for some sites. But it's what I mean by adding extra tooling. You can do that, but it creeps closer toward something more Wordpress + CDN like.
- eddieroger 7y ago
  Oh, I agree. I still prefer it for the relative smallness compared to needing a DB and such, but I am with you that it is creeping bigger.