4 ms·

Bah, I guess hosting a site at digitalocean isn't suitable for HN front page? Even WP super cache isn't saving me.

lstamour 11y ago
Add CloudFlare? ;-)
ultramancool 11y ago
Just throw it behind CloudFlare quick, they'll cache it and you'll be set. They're pretty reputable for free speech and fighting for their customers too, so I trust them to a decent degree.
- cscharenberg 11y ago
  Agreed. CloudFlare is a simple way to add some caching power to a site for free. Or for a few bucks a month enable a bunch of other features.
Sir_Cmpwn 11y ago
It should be fine. The problem is more likely that your stack isn't put together very well. Don't throw more hardware/dollars at it, refine your stack.
sneak 11y ago
Stop using wordpress.
- vox_mollis 11y ago
  This is the correct solution. Not sure why it's downvoted.
- falcolas 11y ago
  At a minimum, add some caching in front of WordPress. Even a 1 minute cache of pages will result in being able to host your WordPress site just about anywhere. Throw in a CDN, and you could almost host it on a Raspberry Pi and throw Reddit at it.
nubela 11y ago
If you don't want to change your nameservers to Cloudflare (Takes up to 24 hours), try Kloudsec, and enable Offline Protection. Caches (like Cloudflare), and better, it archives your site even if your origin server is down. For Kloudsec, all you have to do is to update your A records to point to the CDN IP.
- ultramancool 11y ago
  A few notes on why I'd stick with CloudFlare personally: In my experience the NS transfer takes 20 minutes tops. Part of the idea with CloudFlare being nameserver on down is that DNS is a great thing to hit if you're performing a DDoS attack. Also, CloudFlare does offer the offline mode feature, it's called "Always Online". It's also free for more than 1 page, unlike the Kloudsec one. It also seems weird to me that they bill for their "webshield" on a per-attack basis... someone firing an automated scanner against you could be costing you money big time. These guys also don't have the same reputation as CF for being bulletproof (though I haven't heard bad things about them yet either) and they have some limits on their free plan which CF does not have. Interesting though - always glad to see some competition brewing. I know where I'm taking my business if CF steers me wrong somehow. This looks a lot cheaper than other alternatives.

Add CloudFlare? ;-)

Just throw it behind CloudFlare quick, they'll cache it and you'll be set. They're pretty reputable for free speech and fighting for their customers too, so I trust them to a decent degree.

cscharenberg 11y ago
Agreed. CloudFlare is a simple way to add some caching power to a site for free. Or for a few bucks a month enable a bunch of other features.

Sir_Cmpwn 11y ago

It should be fine. The problem is more likely that your stack isn't put together very well. Don't throw more hardware/dollars at it, refine your stack.

sneak 11y ago

Stop using wordpress.

vox_mollis 11y ago
This is the correct solution. Not sure why it's downvoted.
falcolas 11y ago
At a minimum, add some caching in front of WordPress. Even a 1 minute cache of pages will result in being able to host your WordPress site just about anywhere. Throw in a CDN, and you could almost host it on a Raspberry Pi and throw Reddit at it.

nubela 11y ago

If you don't want to change your nameservers to Cloudflare (Takes up to 24 hours), try Kloudsec, and enable Offline Protection. Caches (like Cloudflare), and better, it archives your site even if your origin server is down. For Kloudsec, all you have to do is to update your A records to point to the CDN IP.

ultramancool 11y ago
A few notes on why I'd stick with CloudFlare personally: In my experience the NS transfer takes 20 minutes tops. Part of the idea with CloudFlare being nameserver on down is that DNS is a great thing to hit if you're performing a DDoS attack. Also, CloudFlare does offer the offline mode feature, it's called "Always Online". It's also free for more than 1 page, unlike the Kloudsec one. It also seems weird to me that they bill for their "webshield" on a per-attack basis... someone firing an automated scanner against you could be costing you money big time. These guys also don't have the same reputation as CF for being bulletproof (though I haven't heard bad things about them yet either) and they have some limits on their free plan which CF does not have. Interesting though - always glad to see some competition brewing. I know where I'm taking my business if CF steers me wrong somehow. This looks a lot cheaper than other alternatives.