11–20 of 64 posts
Spaces + BunnyCDN is even cheaper. ;) $6/month = 250GB of static websites + domain registration fees. If you want to get really cheap, OVH's cloud storage is basically free but you lose https. ($.01/GB of traffic/storage roughly)
Spaces + BunnyCDN is even cheaper. ;) $6/month = 250GB of static websites + domain registration fees. If you want to get really cheap, OVH's cloud storage is basically free but you lose https. ($.01/GB of traffic/storage roughly)
Link for Spaces? Couldn't search it since was fairly generic term.
Spaces + BunnyCDN is even cheaper. ;) $6/month = 250GB of static websites + domain registration fees. If you want to get really cheap, OVH's cloud storage is basically free but you lose https. ($.01/GB of traffic/storage roughly)
Link for Spaces? Couldn't search it since was fairly generic term.
why can't he use the free cloudflare? A static website cached by cloudflare seems very vanilla. Also, why S3? this seems very easy to do with Linode or anything else similarly cheap or cheaper ($20 gets you a KVM VPS with 2 Gb nowadays) Unless you have to regenerate constantly, all it needs is nginx, to serve the pages to Cloudflare edges when thry drop out of the cache
I was previously using Cloudflare in conjunction with a Linode server. The disadvantage of this, however, is that you need to ensure that one server never goes down otherwise anyone hitting a cold cache would see the site down. Also, why do you need a server at all? If you are doing nothing but serving static files then why incur the overhead of maintaining LetsEncrypt certificates and writing Nginx config files? AWS…
12x24x100= lots of mb per day
S3 costs (if only for the bandwidth) will be greater than a server with a fair share unlimited connection
Also, cloudfront non free plans will kill you - again because of the bandwith.
why can't he use the free cloudflare? A static website cached by cloudflare seems very vanilla. Also, why S3? this seems very easy to do with Linode or anything else similarly cheap or cheaper ($20 gets you a KVM VPS with 2 Gb nowadays) Unless you have to regenerate constantly, all it needs is nginx, to serve the pages to Cloudflare edges when thry drop out of the cache
S3 is going to be more reliable than anything you can reasonably be expected to administrate yourself, and it's cheaper as well. It's also supported by all CI tools, so you just script the deployment based on git commits.
My deployment is shell scripts launched by systemd timers
Instead of downvoting, can someone please explain why this setup that is stable is not up to whatever standards?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was previously using Cloudflare in conjunction with a Linode server. The disadvantage of this, however, is that you need to ensure that one server never goes down otherwise anyone hitting a cold cache would see the site down. Also, why do you need a server at all? If you are doing nothing but serving static files then why incur the overhead of maintaining LetsEncrypt certificates and writing Nginx config files? AWS…
Sure! here are my counter thoughts: What if your site changes every 5 minutes, and is about 100Mb? 12x24x100= lots of mb per day S3 costs (if only for the bandwidth) will be greater than a server with a fair share unlimited connection Also, cloudfront non free plans will kill you - again because of the bandwith.
This is probably an exceptional rate of change for the _vast_ majority of static sites.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure! here are my counter thoughts: What if your site changes every 5 minutes, and is about 100Mb? 12x24x100= lots of mb per day S3 costs (if only for the bandwidth) will be greater than a server with a fair share unlimited connection Also, cloudfront non free plans will kill you - again because of the bandwith.
> What if your site changes every 5 minutes, and is about 100Mb? This is probably an exceptional rate of change for the _vast_ majority of static sites.
I also doubt that many static sites have much "overhead" related to maintaining nginx config files and Let's Encrypt certificates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
S3 is going to be more reliable than anything you can reasonably be expected to administrate yourself, and it's cheaper as well. It's also supported by all CI tools, so you just script the deployment based on git commits.
My linode hasn't been updated for years, still runs nginx just fine. port knocking means little risks of intrusion, as ssh is on a non standard port too. My deployment is shell scripts launched by systemd timers Instead of downvoting, can someone please explain why this setup that is stable is not up to whatever standards?
why can't he use the free cloudflare? A static website cached by cloudflare seems very vanilla. Also, why S3? this seems very easy to do with Linode or anything else similarly cheap or cheaper ($20 gets you a KVM VPS with 2 Gb nowadays) Unless you have to regenerate constantly, all it needs is nginx, to serve the pages to Cloudflare edges when thry drop out of the cache
I was previously using Cloudflare in conjunction with a Linode server. The disadvantage of this, however, is that you need to ensure that one server never goes down otherwise anyone hitting a cold cache would see the site down. Also, why do you need a server at all? If you are doing nothing but serving static files then why incur the overhead of maintaining LetsEncrypt certificates and writing Nginx config files? AWS…