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

Benchmarking static website hosting providers

savjee.be

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–66 of 66 posts

Re: Benchmarking static website hosting providers

#61

Post by usr1106 »

social_quotient wrote: post #45
usr1106 wrote: post #17

Vaguely related: We use AWS S3 to poll for changes in a file from dozens of deployed devices regularly (polling is not the smartest way...). We get failures that the file header cannot be retrieved many times a week. Well, one could guess it's a connectivity problem of the device. Most are on cellular networks, but the problem also occurs from devices connected to one of the top US universities' network. The devices…

Am I understanding this right. You get several read failures per week from various devices trying to access a rarely/infrequent updated s3 object? (Ouch if this is right)

Exactly. The error to

  aws s3api get-object --if-none-match ...
is

  Could not connect to the endpoint URL: "https://foo.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/dir1/dir2/bar.json"
At the "same" time SNS works.

Re: Benchmarking static website hosting providers

#62

Post by nottorp »

heapslip wrote: post #60
nottorp wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have 10 ms to 1.1.1.1 in RO/RDS on wired. I blame their idiotic pppoe.

I have ~2.2 ms to 1.1.1.1 on RDS, wired as well. I guess it depends on the area and how lucky you are with the equipment they use.

Frankly 10 ms is good enough.

Re: Benchmarking static website hosting providers

#63

Post by chris_st »

jamessb wrote: post #54
chris_st wrote: post #33

I'd be interested to see comparisons with the "S3-alike" services like Wasabi [1] and BackBlaze's B2 [2]. Their selling point is that they're a lot cheaper, so performance comparisons would be interesting. 1: https://wasabi.com 2: https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage.html

I don't think it's a good idea to serve a static website out of a Wasabi bucket - they might suspend your account if it receives any significant traffic. Their pricing model is to be cheap by not apply egress bandwidth charges, on the understanding that this will be low compared to the storage used. The pricing FAQ says "If your monthly downloads (egress) are greater than your active storage volume, then your storage…

Thanks, that's very interesting!

Re: Benchmarking static website hosting providers

#64

Post by NorwegianDude »

jorams wrote: post #29
PudgePacket wrote: post #4

Netlify results seem disappointing, I say that as a happy user of their service. Netlify is an outlier in this comparison. For them, static site hosting is their core product, bread and butter if you will. To have such mediocre performance, as well as a relatively bad time to first byte is quite surprising.

This article compares it to CDN services, which specialize in static file hosting. Static site hosting is just static file hosting with a different marketing strategy and behind-the-scenes workflow. The real disappointment here is Cloudflare, which manages to be among the slowest despite their supposed focus on performance. Google Cloud Storage manages to be significantly faster than Cloudflare, while serving files p…

I've had my fair share of issues with Cloudflare, but I'm pretty sure something is way off with the numbers in this post. My guess is that caching was off.

Re: Benchmarking static website hosting providers

#65

Post by petercooper »

visarga wrote: post #28
StavrosK wrote: post #2

CloudFlare's slowness is extremely surprising to me. From my house in Greece, I get a one millisecond ping to 1.1.1.1 (devices in my house have higher pings), so I was assuming that would carry over to their caches. Too bad about that, looks like I'm going to have to rethink my setup of having them cache my site on their edge.

I get 8ms even to my WiFi router, how can you have such a low response time? My 1.1.1.1 time is 20ms (Romania).

Yeah, I don't get it either. Even wired I don't think I've ever seen a ping time of under 10ms to anything on the broader Internet here in the UK and I have both FTTC and cable connections. POPs seem to be weird in the UK generally though, I often get geolocated to somewhere 100+ miles away.

Re: Benchmarking static website hosting providers

#66

Post by samoa42 »

StavrosK wrote: post #57
jlgaddis wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They publish a list of their POPs: https://www.cloudflare.com/network/

Ah, thanks! Yep, there's one here.

seems like a worthy correction/addition to your top post that you have lower ping to a cf-pop in your city over cables than to inhouse devices over wifi.
Post reply on HN