Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We handle 80TB and 5M page views a month for under $400

blog.polyhaven.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 426 posts

Re: We handle 80TB and 5M page views a month for under $400

#231

Post by ognarb »

willcipriano wrote: post #25

If you are worried about getting your blog post to the top of Reddit or Hacker News (I've never been there myself); you can have a very modest web server or even a pay per request serverless sort of thing and pay $20 real quick to Cloudflare if you happen to get popular. It's the Bart Simpson method of highly scalability[0], for static content you can have global datacenter coverage in a couple minutes or so if you u…

I had a blog post on the frontpage of hn for more tht 20 hours and my cheap Vps for 3€ a month could handle it perfectly since my website is just a statically generated website with hugo.

Re: We handle 80TB and 5M page views a month for under $400

#232

Post by simonbarker87 »

MichaelRazum wrote: post #230
throw14082020 wrote: post #188

> To avoid this problem in the future, I decided to splurge a bit and go for a cloud solution where I wouldn’t have to worry about reliability, performance, scaling or integrity ever again: Google Firestore. > Google Firebase is nice and convenient, but it is quite expensive. We could investigate some other managed database options in future. I've only seen people get annoyed with Firestore over time, and migrating o…

What is a good solution compared to firebase ? I mean for a new project, alone something like user handling, registration, email sending, recovering passwords seem to cost some effort. Also be able to react to events, is kind of trivial in firebase. So is it really a bad choise (for the beginning)? Later you can always try to optimize.

SupaBase is a good alternative in my opinion but they are not as feature rich yet - but you do get SQL again which is delightful

Re: We handle 80TB and 5M page views a month for under $400

#233

Post by simonbarker87 »

helsontaveras18 wrote: post #125

This website is one of the fastest web pages I’ve ever used. Although it’s simple, it immediately loads pages and pages of images. Like in a flash. I’m on mobile web and it’s such a snappy experience.

Agreed, incredibly fast

Re: We handle 80TB and 5M page views a month for under $400

#235

Post by nix23 »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #226

Honestly you can go very far with unmettered data plans. We consume 2GB/S, maxed out, which ends up being 5184TB a month. We have millions on users a day, all on a streaming video platform. It cost less than $2K/Month. The cloud is crazy expensive. Private servers are beasts, and they are cheap. Of course, for this price, you don't have redundancy and horizontal scaling. You also don't have to maintain and debug a sy…

Thanks! Exactly that! I always tell that customers and their response is:

-But google/facebook/amazon...

-But uptime needs to be 99.999

-But everyone uses cloud

Most businesses are not a trading-market, have less then 100 peoples (aka you are probably not another amazon), and no bonus using a cloud/kubernetes etc.

But it's the same old story, in the 00's i used the ~same arguments against buying OracleDB ;)

Re: We handle 80TB and 5M page views a month for under $400

#236

Post by Cthulhu_ »

nix23 wrote: post #235
BiteCode_dev wrote: post #226

Honestly you can go very far with unmettered data plans. We consume 2GB/S, maxed out, which ends up being 5184TB a month. We have millions on users a day, all on a streaming video platform. It cost less than $2K/Month. The cloud is crazy expensive. Private servers are beasts, and they are cheap. Of course, for this price, you don't have redundancy and horizontal scaling. You also don't have to maintain and debug a sy…

Thanks! Exactly that! I always tell that customers and their response is: -But google/facebook/amazon... -But uptime needs to be 99.999 -But everyone uses cloud Most businesses are not a trading-market, have less then 100 peoples (aka you are probably not another amazon), and no bonus using a cloud/kubernetes etc. But it's the same old story, in the 00's i used the ~same arguments against buying OracleDB ;)

And you can tell them all of those are possible, but they need to have a massive budget, not just for the monthly bills but also to hire experts to set things up with those constraints.

I worked at a company once that, from higher up, said that they had to have five nines of uptime. We had some really good cloud engineers there (one guy set up a server / internet container for the military in Afghanistan; in hindsight he said they should've just sent a container of porn dvd's), and they really went to town. For that five nines uptime, you're already pretty much required to set up your infrastructure to use multiple availability zones, everything redundant multiple times, etc.

Of course, the actual software we wrote was just a bunch of CRUD services written in nodejs (later scala because IDK), on top of a pile of shit java that abstracted away decades of legacy mainframes.

Re: We handle 80TB and 5M page views a month for under $400

#237

Post by anaganisk »

elaveriao wrote: post #225
anaganisk wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I didn’t miss the point, $20 is weeks worth of meal in majority of countries. People from those countries run successful blogs without paying a penny to cloudlfare. I serve much more than 2GB per month without all that on a dynamic site. Paying cloudlfare for that is like putting a tarp over a dumpster fire to quickly hide it. I would rather think why my static site fails like shit when it doesn’t even need server…

I invite you to do the calculations of serving 80tb of data serving from S3. Over 6k was my result but happy to be proved wrong.

What are you serving on a static site/ blog worth 80TB? I also said CDN makes sense for huge files. Please don’t nitpick.

Re: We handle 80TB and 5M page views a month for under $400

#238

Post by nix23 »

kortilla wrote: post #127
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're going to centralize in Cloudflare you might as well just skip the hosting the website bit entirely and make a business account on Facebook as your host. These responses are getting bizarre. Facebook pages have nothing to do with web hosting or Cloudflare. Also, hosting on a single server in a single datacenter is, literally, the definition of centralized. Cloudflare distributes the content to a huge numbe…

Because cloud flare administratively centralizes a solution that was previously distributed. Guess what percentage of websites Cloudflare could take down in minutes if they decided? It doesn’t matter if cloudflare itself uses a distributed architecture. It’s a massive central point of failure/malice.

>Guess what percentage of websites Cloudflare could take down in minutes if they decided?

Yes and? People change their DNS entry and will never come back.

Re: We handle 80TB and 5M page views a month for under $400

#240

Post by anaganisk »

innocenat wrote: post #205
anaganisk wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I didn’t miss the point, $20 is weeks worth of meal in majority of countries. People from those countries run successful blogs without paying a penny to cloudlfare. I serve much more than 2GB per month without all that on a dynamic site. Paying cloudlfare for that is like putting a tarp over a dumpster fire to quickly hide it. I would rather think why my static site fails like shit when it doesn’t even need server…

Then let your site fail, it's your choice. For the rest of us who would rather not let our site fail, a quick one time $20 tarp over dumpster to handle the traffic in the meantime is good.

My site never failed thats the thing without paying $20. And many developers can actually do it too. If you can’t serve decent traffic for a static site, I would rather fix the leaking tap once and for all than wasting money on a water tanker every time I am out of water.
Post reply on HN