31–40 of 67 posts
What a nightmare. I'm sure there are use cases for a setup like this, but this is not the system I'd like to maintain. I use Jekyll because of it's simplicity. I edit my site in my favorite text editor and rsync to shared hosting.
Cool! I could see why this would work well for teams and collaboration. Here's my hugo+aws pipeline for my personal blog. Do editing, with hugo in server mode so I can WYSIWYG edit my pages. Then run a bash script: #!/bin/bash # build site from markdown + template hugo ~/sitedir/ # post to S3 bucket which is a file storage service aws s3 sync ~/sitedir/public s3:sitedirbuckket --recursive # invalidate CDN distributio…
I deploy my websites on my own VPS at DigitalOcean, but with a simpler setup then the TFA. I simply have a Travis-ci.org setup that does an "rsync" after "jekyll build". And in case I'm not in the mood for waiting on Travis, I simply "rsync" from my localhost after build. Having an automated build system has advantages though - if you get a PR on your website repository with typos and so on, you just have to merge it…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We use Netlify and find there are quite often (every few weeks) outages and caching issues.
I don't think this is fair. Checking my monitoring logs I have 26 minutes of downtime attributable to Netlify since 03 March 2017. That's about 99.994% uptime. If I attribute every single outage. That is 43 minutes since 03 March 2017, though some of those were not Netlify errors, but even so, if we are uncharitable/inaccurate and attribute them to Netlify that works out to 99.98% uptime. Not bad for a free service.…
For a static site, what else is there to break?
After I discovered Netlify, I'm kind of thinking "why bother". It's free, I just push to my repo and they take care of all the building/publishing/hosting/CDNs, and they're very responsive for support and have high availability. I'm a very happy customer (or rather leech, as I don't pay anything).
After I discovered Netlify, I'm kind of thinking "why bother". It's free, I just push to my repo and they take care of all the building/publishing/hosting/CDNs, and they're very responsive for support and have high availability. I'm a very happy customer (or rather leech, as I don't pay anything).
After I discovered Netlify, I'm kind of thinking "why bother". It's free, I just push to my repo and they take care of all the building/publishing/hosting/CDNs, and they're very responsive for support and have high availability. I'm a very happy customer (or rather leech, as I don't pay anything).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this is fair. Checking my monitoring logs I have 26 minutes of downtime attributable to Netlify since 03 March 2017. That's about 99.994% uptime. If I attribute every single outage. That is 43 minutes since 03 March 2017, though some of those were not Netlify errors, but even so, if we are uncharitable/inaccurate and attribute them to Netlify that works out to 99.98% uptime. Not bad for a free service.…
> though some of those were not Netlify errors For a static site, what else is there to break?
Is this because of people wanting to host on static-asset only servers (GitHub Pages, S3 Website, etc) or is there some other benefit above simply using any standard blogging software? If it's a question of speed, that's what caching does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We use Netlify and find there are quite often (every few weeks) outages and caching issues.
I don't think this is fair. Checking my monitoring logs I have 26 minutes of downtime attributable to Netlify since 03 March 2017. That's about 99.994% uptime. If I attribute every single outage. That is 43 minutes since 03 March 2017, though some of those were not Netlify errors, but even so, if we are uncharitable/inaccurate and attribute them to Netlify that works out to 99.98% uptime. Not bad for a free service.…