Documents 6 approaches (implemented, considered, and future) with PROs, CONs, measured savings, and recommendations for each. Co-authored-by: ajnart <49837342+ajnart@users.noreply.github.com>
191 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
191 lines
6.4 KiB
Markdown
# Memory Optimization Approaches
|
|
|
|
This document describes the approaches tried and considered for reducing the RAM footprint of Homarr's server processes.
|
|
|
|
## Baseline Architecture (Before)
|
|
|
|
Homarr runs **three separate Node.js processes**:
|
|
|
|
| Process | Port | Purpose |
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
| `apps/nextjs` (Next.js) | 3000 | Web UI + API routes |
|
|
| `apps/websocket` (WS server) | 3001 | tRPC WebSocket subscriptions |
|
|
| `apps/tasks` (Tasks/Cron server) | 3002 | Cron job scheduling + management API |
|
|
|
|
Each process loads its own V8 heap, duplicates shared dependencies (`@homarr/db`, `@homarr/auth`, etc.), and runs its own event loop.
|
|
|
|
**Measured baseline (dev mode, idle):** ~2,954 MB total RSS
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Approach 1: Integrate WebSocket Server into Next.js Custom Server
|
|
|
|
**Status:** ✅ Implemented
|
|
|
|
Eliminates `apps/websocket` by handling WebSocket upgrades inside a [Next.js custom server](https://nextjs.org/docs/pages/guides/custom-server):
|
|
|
|
```ts
|
|
const app = next({ dev, hostname, port, dir });
|
|
const upgradeHandler = app.getUpgradeHandler();
|
|
|
|
server.on("upgrade", (req, socket, head) => {
|
|
if (req.url?.startsWith("/websockets")) {
|
|
wss.handleUpgrade(req, socket, head, (ws) => wss.emit("connection", ws, req));
|
|
} else {
|
|
upgradeHandler(req, socket, head); // HMR, etc.
|
|
}
|
|
});
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### PROs
|
|
- Eliminates one V8 heap (~208 MB)
|
|
- WebSocket runs on same port as HTTP (simpler networking/proxying)
|
|
- Shared `@homarr/db` connection pool and module cache
|
|
- `getUpgradeHandler()` properly delegates HMR to Next.js in dev mode
|
|
|
|
### CONs
|
|
- Custom server disables some Next.js optimizations (automatic static optimization still works with `output: "standalone"`)
|
|
- WebSocket errors could affect the main server process
|
|
- Slightly more complex startup code
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Approach 2: Integrate Tasks/Cron Server into Next.js Custom Server
|
|
|
|
**Status:** ✅ Implemented (combined with Approach 1)
|
|
|
|
Eliminates `apps/tasks` by running the Fastify tRPC cron API and job scheduler inside the same process:
|
|
|
|
```ts
|
|
async function startTasksServer() {
|
|
const tasksServer = fastify({ maxParamLength: 5000 });
|
|
tasksServer.register(fastifyTRPCPlugin, { ... });
|
|
await cleanupSessionsAsync();
|
|
await invalidateUpdateCheckerCacheAsync();
|
|
await jobGroup.initializeAsync();
|
|
await jobGroup.startAllAsync();
|
|
await tasksServer.listen({ port: CRON_JOB_API_PORT });
|
|
return tasksServer;
|
|
}
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### PROs
|
|
- Eliminates another V8 heap (~328 MB)
|
|
- Shared database connection pool across Next.js API routes and cron jobs
|
|
- Single process to manage (simpler Docker, `run.sh`, monitoring)
|
|
- Cron jobs can directly share in-memory state with the web server
|
|
|
|
### CONs
|
|
- A misbehaving cron job could affect web request latency
|
|
- Fastify still binds to port 3002 for internal tRPC communication (minor overhead)
|
|
- More dependencies in the custom server bundle
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Combined Result (Approaches 1 + 2)
|
|
|
|
| Component | Separate (before) | Integrated (after) |
|
|
|---|---|---|
|
|
| WebSocket server | ~208 MB | — |
|
|
| Tasks/Cron server | ~328 MB | — |
|
|
| Next.js (incl. workers) | ~2,418 MB | — |
|
|
| Custom Server (all-in-one) | — | ~2,007 MB |
|
|
| **Total RSS** | **~2,954 MB** | **~2,007 MB** |
|
|
| **Savings** | — | **~947 MB (~32%)** |
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Approach 3: Eliminate Fastify — Direct Function Calls for Cron API
|
|
|
|
**Status:** 📋 Considered, not implemented
|
|
|
|
Since the cron job API client (`cronJobApi`) is only used from Next.js API routes (same process now), we could replace the HTTP+tRPC client with direct function calls to `JobManager`:
|
|
|
|
```ts
|
|
// Before: HTTP call to localhost:3002/trpc
|
|
await cronJobApi.trigger.mutate({ name: "myJob" });
|
|
|
|
// After: direct call in same process
|
|
await jobManager.triggerAsync("myJob");
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### PROs
|
|
- Eliminates Fastify dependency and port 3002 listener entirely
|
|
- Zero network overhead for cron API calls
|
|
- Simpler architecture (no internal HTTP, no API key needed)
|
|
|
|
### CONs
|
|
- Requires refactoring `packages/api/src/router/cron-jobs.ts` and `packages/cron-job-api`
|
|
- Breaks the clean separation between Next.js API and tasks concerns
|
|
- If the architecture ever splits back to separate processes, this would need to be reverted
|
|
- API key authentication for cron operations would need a different mechanism
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Approach 4: Node.js `--max-old-space-size` Flag
|
|
|
|
**Status:** 📋 Considered, available as user override
|
|
|
|
Setting `NODE_OPTIONS=--max-old-space-size=N` limits V8 heap growth and forces more aggressive garbage collection.
|
|
|
|
```dockerfile
|
|
# Example: limit heap to 512 MB
|
|
ENV NODE_OPTIONS="--max-old-space-size=512"
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
### PROs
|
|
- Can reduce peak memory usage in constrained environments
|
|
- Easy to configure via environment variable
|
|
- No code changes required
|
|
|
|
### CONs
|
|
- Too low a value causes OOM crashes under load
|
|
- Doesn't reduce actual memory *needed*, just forces earlier GC
|
|
- Default Node.js behavior (~1.7 GB limit on 64-bit) is reasonable for most deployments
|
|
- Different deployments have different memory constraints — no single good default
|
|
|
|
**Recommendation:** Don't set a default in the Dockerfile. Document as a tuning option for users running on low-memory hosts (e.g., `docker run -e NODE_OPTIONS="--max-old-space-size=512"`).
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Approach 5: Next.js `output: "standalone"` (Already in Use)
|
|
|
|
**Status:** ✅ Already configured
|
|
|
|
The `next.config.ts` already uses `output: "standalone"`, which:
|
|
- Traces only the files needed for production
|
|
- Creates a minimal `.next/standalone` directory
|
|
- Avoids shipping full `node_modules`
|
|
|
|
This is already optimized and no further action needed.
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Approach 6: Shared Redis Connection Pooling
|
|
|
|
**Status:** 📋 Considered, not implemented
|
|
|
|
With all services in one process, Redis connection pools could be shared. Currently, each module may create its own Redis client instance.
|
|
|
|
### PROs
|
|
- Fewer open connections to Redis
|
|
- Slightly less memory for connection buffers
|
|
|
|
### CONs
|
|
- Marginal memory savings (Redis connections are lightweight)
|
|
- Requires auditing all Redis usage across packages
|
|
- Risk of connection contention under high load
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
## Summary of Recommendations
|
|
|
|
| Approach | Impact | Effort | Status |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 1. Integrate WS server | ~208 MB saved | Low | ✅ Done |
|
|
| 2. Integrate Tasks server | ~328 MB saved | Medium | ✅ Done |
|
|
| 3. Eliminate Fastify | ~10-30 MB saved | High | 📋 Future |
|
|
| 4. `--max-old-space-size` | Configurable | None | 📋 User option |
|
|
| 5. Standalone output | Already optimal | None | ✅ Already done |
|
|
| 6. Shared Redis pools | ~5-10 MB saved | Medium | 📋 Future |
|