MUPX vs. A Meteor Docker Image

So I have been deploying my Meteor applications using MUPX on Digital Ocean.
My question is I’m finding a lot of devs that are using Docker Images directly.
Is this a better approach if you are deploying multiple Meteor applications or is this just another work around vs. using MUPX ?

Any input and advice would be greatly appreciated.


MUPX is actually powered by Docker. You could use meteorhacks/meteord:onbuild which is actually what MUPX is using behind the scenes.

Thank you for the quick reply.
I actually did not know exactly what MUPX was doing behind the scenes, although I am aware that they are using Docker to run the application.

I saw a post on here where a user expressed they are using NGINX as well within their production/staging stack.

I guess my concern is that my MUPX workflow could be improved.
Currently I have NGINX installed directly on my DO server, and I feel there could be a better way to manage the workflow of all my apps and deployment.

Is there any true benefit to using a stack vs. MUPX ?

1 Like

My friend and I actually wrote a blog on deploying meteor to AWS with NGINX (caution it’s a deprecated blog post). The big difference would be the ability to use NGINX as a reverse proxy which is useful for meteor for 2 main reasons. One being enabling sticky sessions as well as websockets. The other is based on the first being that after you get an SSL termination proxy which is easy enough to setup on NGINX.

Using MUPX is good because it allows you to deploy your applications really quickly and easily.

If you’re interested in containers and containerizing your applications you could take a quick look at this talk that Matt DeBergalis gave on the architecture of galaxy. It’s interesting and you can realize pretty quickly that what they are doing isn’t magic and it isn’t anything that you can’t do yourself.

1 Like