171–180 of 264 posts
can we not use unreadable fonts on websites? I read the top item as 6g aka 6,000 and the next (aws) as $60 and they were like "we can likely cut here".... yo you're spending $6k on the other thing cut there first... reading again yeah true.
Are you blocking fonts.gstatic.com? It's loading the font (Raleway) from there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a web app that's struggling if there are more than 2 concurrent users per CPU core. It's displaying incompressible large resolution images with EDIT: not sure why I'm downvoted, I'm just presenting my use case. They are multigigabyte images encoded with custom wavelet compression that are cut into tiles (think google earth), each user needs 5-10 tiles every second
My guess would be that your webapp is serving images in a blocking fashion, meaning every time a use requests an image it will fetch the image for the user AND block the http serving thread until the image is uploaded. Can you provide more context (eg: tech stack)?
It is really disconcerting to see that doing similar "do-it-yourself" hosting activities nowadays appear to cost twice as much (judging by the article) while the "raw msterials" - core backbone traffic, compute power, memory and storage - all have gotten waaaaay cheaper in the last decade. Too many new rent-seeking middlemen, I guess...
1. How do you define "healthy". 2. Genetic abilities. 3. Overall health. 4. Eating habits. 5. Your geographical location. 6. Your daily routine ..... X^60000. {Factor number X^60000}
There are an infinite amount of buttons and dials that will determine how much "X monthly users" will set you back. Back in 2011 I used to own a blog that had something along the lines of 25k daily visitors. My annual bill was less than 100 bucks, domain included. And keep in mind that this was way before AWS, GCP and Azure came into the picture and costs were much higher than they are now. But I had spent months investigating the cheapest and most efficient ways to cut down costs. And it's the same with cloud providers - they can be brutally expensive or dirt cheap for the exact same thing if you don't take your time to see which and what is the best solution for your use case.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I beg to differ. In my experience, the complicated setups that are justified by the argument of "reliability" have more downtime then a single VPS. The reason is probably that there are more moving parts and more has to be maintained / can go wrong. These days, a single VPS in the right datacenter has excellent uptime.
> I beg to differ. > In my experience, the complicated setups that are justified by the argument of "reliability" have more downtime then a single VPS. The reason is probably that there are more moving parts and more has to be maintained / can go wrong. > These days, a single VPS in the right datacenter has excellent uptime. Again, maybe in your experience but that's not universal. There's literally no redundancy wit…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both you and TekMoi should probably value your own time higher. The cost savings are great, but once you spend 4 hours on configuring a database server, that'll probably be $200+ worth of your time and, thus, wipe out most of the savings.
Being well versed in setting up your own database server bereft of cloud provider hand holding easily pays for initial time investment over time. I don't think most understand just how much a mastery of the basics is capable of generating in value when you're essentially vendor lock-in proof. There is so much blindness to voluntary hanging of one's arose out the window created by vendor overreliance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My guess would be that your webapp is serving images in a blocking fashion, meaning every time a use requests an image it will fetch the image for the user AND block the http serving thread until the image is uploaded. Can you provide more context (eg: tech stack)?
What's blocking is number of http connections between browser and server. Most browsers only allow 6, each tile takes about 100ms so getting 10 in under second doesn't always happen.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/CSS_Images/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> PHP (He doesn't use any frameworks like Laravel) I wouldn't want to read (or write) that code, but thanks for the article.
Well, aren't you special. How about staying on topic and not dropping in this, what, developer virtue signaling?
A major subtopic of this thread is "different situations call for different setups."
Saying "I won't work with PHP" is like saying "Gluten will make me shit my brains out." It is not virtue signalling.
I don’t understand some of the comments quibbling over how this person has a “bloated” stack because it costs more than whatever irrationally frugal setup they’ve created for an app that does X specific thing. Here’s a bigger point: If you’ve got 55,000 monthly active users, and $171 per month doesn’t feel like a rounding error to you, then what you made isn’t actually valuable. Spending any amount of hours to reduce…
You're assuming that the goal is to make something valuable. There are forums with more traffic than this, which don't make money. They're hobby projects.
However, money is the universal way to measure value. And if you think that you create an enormous value for the community, and it's something that is important to you personally, paying a few hundred bucks a month for it should be a no-brainer.