61–70 of 292 posts
Note: Just checked, and even a simple Medium blog post page won't fit on one those old 3.5" floppy disks..
EDIT: To stay on topic - the OP's page loaded instantly for me here in outback Australia...
Image of Chrome Dev Tools: https://reportcards.scdn3.secure.raxcdn.com/assets/uploads/f...
As an aside, does HTTP/2 provide any benefit for a single HTML file with no external assets?
Just to point out, there's no particular reason to host a page like this on a VPS at all. You could just throw it on S3. Even better, you could put it behind a CDN like Cloudfront and the total cost would be a dollar or two a month, not $25+ and it would be significantly faster.
> You could just throw it on S3. Even better, you could put it behind a CDN like Cloudfront and the total cost would be a dollar or two a month, not $25+ and it would be significantly faster. I apologize for quibbling (really, I do! but I'm an infrastructure guy! This is my bag!). Yes, host it on S3, but ALWAYS put a CDN in front of S3 with long cache times (even just Cloudfront works). S3 can sporadically take hundr…
Edit: Nevermind, confused Cloudfront with Cloudflare. Thanks for the correction, toomuchtodo.
"No Javascript" Amen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is this image inlining thing something new? No, it's been around since forever. Just not used terribly often. > Am I reading it correctly that the images are encoded in base64 and delivered as html? Surely this is a bad idea... no? It depends. Making a new request to fetch the image always has overhead. Whether that overhead is bigger or smaller than the overhead of base64-encoding the image depends on: • file size…
You forgot the most important factor: Whether you're reusing that image on a different page. Embedding images in the HTML is basically saving an HTTP request at the expense of not being able to cache the image separately from the HTML.
Just to point out, there's no particular reason to host a page like this on a VPS at all. You could just throw it on S3. Even better, you could put it behind a CDN like Cloudfront and the total cost would be a dollar or two a month, not $25+ and it would be significantly faster.
Instead of the affiliate link to some host no on has heard of,he should have affiliated linked to AWS (if possible) and a CDN. Then he could have added that as a strong feature that helps makes the page so fast?
The bit about being hosted on SSDs is silly. I could host that site in unused registers of my CPU.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You could just throw it on S3. Even better, you could put it behind a CDN like Cloudfront and the total cost would be a dollar or two a month, not $25+ and it would be significantly faster. I apologize for quibbling (really, I do! but I'm an infrastructure guy! This is my bag!). Yes, host it on S3, but ALWAYS put a CDN in front of S3 with long cache times (even just Cloudfront works). S3 can sporadically take hundr…
You could also host it on App Engine for free and automatically use Google's CDN.
GAE doesn't charge for their object store nor their CDN service?
Took me almost 30 seconds to load, maybe because the server is being hammered by HN traffic right now? Also like others here were saying, using a CDN would definitely help with the initial latency.
Just to point out, there's no particular reason to host a page like this on a VPS at all. You could just throw it on S3. Even better, you could put it behind a CDN like Cloudfront and the total cost would be a dollar or two a month, not $25+ and it would be significantly faster.
