31–40 of 60 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The whole point of CDNs is to host static assets, why wouldn't you use one? They are dead simple to use.
Because caddy/nginx/apache (any web server really) can serve that content as well as any other? Better question is; why default to using more things before you actually need them? Personally, software engineering for me is mostly about trying to avoid accidental complexity. People obsessing about "web scale" and "distributed architecture" before they even figured out if people actually want to use the platform/produc…
That's not really true if you care about reliability. You need 2 nodes in case one goes down/gets rebooted/etc, and then you need a way to direct traffic away from bad nodes (via DNS or a load balancer or etc).
You'll end up building half of a crappy CDN to try to make that work, and it's way more complicated than chucking CloudFlare in front of static assets.
I would be with you if this was something complicated to cache where you're server-side templating responses and can't just globally cache things, but for static HTML/CSS/JS/images it's basically 0 configuration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are two widely understood downsides of AWS: 1. High egress costs 2. No hard spending limits Both of these were problems for the author. I don't mean to "blame the victim" but the choice of AWS here had a predictable outcome. Static documentation is the easiest content to host and AWS is the most expensive way to host it.
Really high bandwidth costs in general. I've never worked anywhere large enough to hit them, but I've heard inter-AZ traffic in the same region can become quite expensive once you're big enough
I don't know exactly what the website was, but if it's just HTML, CSS, some JS and some images, why would you ever host that on a "pay per visit/bandwidth" platform like AWS? Not only is AWS traffic extra expensive compared to pretty much any alternative, paying for bandwidth in that manner never made much sense to me. Even shared hosting like we did early 00s would have been a better solution for hosting a typical w…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because caddy/nginx/apache (any web server really) can serve that content as well as any other? Better question is; why default to using more things before you actually need them? Personally, software engineering for me is mostly about trying to avoid accidental complexity. People obsessing about "web scale" and "distributed architecture" before they even figured out if people actually want to use the platform/produc…
> Because caddy/nginx/apache (any web server really) can serve that content as well as any other? That's not really true if you care about reliability. You need 2 nodes in case one goes down/gets rebooted/etc, and then you need a way to direct traffic away from bad nodes (via DNS or a load balancer or etc). You'll end up building half of a crappy CDN to try to make that work, and it's way more complicated than chucki…
While reliability is always some concern, we are talking about a website containing docs for a nerdy tool used by a minuscule percentage of developers. No one will complain if it goes down for 1h daily.
I don't know exactly what the website was, but if it's just HTML, CSS, some JS and some images, why would you ever host that on a "pay per visit/bandwidth" platform like AWS? Not only is AWS traffic extra expensive compared to pretty much any alternative, paying for bandwidth in that manner never made much sense to me. Even shared hosting like we did early 00s would have been a better solution for hosting a typical w…
I donated a bit of money to help tarsius offset the cost of AWS LLM abuse, well deserved for the value I've gotten from his tools.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because caddy/nginx/apache (any web server really) can serve that content as well as any other? Better question is; why default to using more things before you actually need them? Personally, software engineering for me is mostly about trying to avoid accidental complexity. People obsessing about "web scale" and "distributed architecture" before they even figured out if people actually want to use the platform/produc…
How is setting up a web server not using more things than you need when you could just drag and drop a folder using one of many different CDN providers? (Or of course set up integrations as you want)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are two widely understood downsides of AWS: 1. High egress costs 2. No hard spending limits Both of these were problems for the author. I don't mean to "blame the victim" but the choice of AWS here had a predictable outcome. Static documentation is the easiest content to host and AWS is the most expensive way to host it.
Really high bandwidth costs in general. I've never worked anywhere large enough to hit them, but I've heard inter-AZ traffic in the same region can become quite expensive once you're big enough