5 ms·

the guy says he's not an idiot then brags about spending $30 per month on a VPS (idiot), for a single-page static HTML website with all inline-code (idiot+1).

the guy says he's not an idiot then brags about spending $30 per month on a VPS (idiot), for a single-page static HTML website with all inline-code (idiot+1). It's not being negative to point out the glaring flaws in a person's statements. My assumption is the entire thing is an advertisement for that hosting service.

mikepurvis 10y ago
Also, whether the VPS has an SSD or not is totally irrelevant— if you really were serving a single page it would be cached in the memory of your webserver. (Or better yet, serve the thing off S3 and let Amazon be your CDN.)
- simbalion 10y ago
  I'm not saying a VPS is not appropriate for a static HTML web-page, but there are perfectly capable VPSes avaible for $3.50 to $5. I'm not in agreement with many of the commenters regarding CDNs. I don't believe in a free lunch. Free software is one thing, but CDNs require infrastructure, which incur costs. Somewhere, the people offering those services expect to make those costs back. You'll either pay for it directly, or you'll pay for leeching off someone else's bill in karma. For a very tiny, low-traffic, low-bandwidth website, I think not using a CDN is perfectly reasonable.
  - ajdlinux 10y ago
    Economies of scale...
    - dragontamer 10y ago
      Get a decent shared host. Just because Godaddy sucks doesn't mean that all shared hosting sucks. NearlyFreeSpeech.net is fine for most people, or Amazon S3 if you're into AWS / webgui stuff. If you're actually using a decent amount of bandwidth (ie: image hosting), something like Hawkhost.com would be good. Just gotta stay away from EIG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_International_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_International_Group), which is a conglomerate that's buying up all the shared hosts and making them crappy. Bam. Now you have economies of scale AND far cheaper hosting than any VPS.
      - simbalion 10y ago
        Keeping in mind that you can get a VPS for as low as $3.50 per month, I don't see that there is ever a reason to use shared hosting, and several reasons not to, performance is only one of them. If you're website is that unimportant, then you could probably get by with any free hosting services where your page would be yourpage.serviceprovider.tld
- collinmanderson 10y ago
  I'd use github pages.
- meowface 10y ago
  Hell, I'd just use my Dropbox account.
  - fakename 10y ago
    Dropbox is disabling html hosting on October 3rd
    - meowface 10y ago
      Ah, shame. I imagine it's for security reasons, though, so I can't blame them.
- tzakrajs 10y ago
  Exactly, it is not a good argument. I think they may not know better yet. We all start somewhere.
vacri 10y ago
Where does it say that the VPS is used only for that one page?
- failrate 10y ago
  It doesn't. It isn't. It appears that there are other projects hosted on the same site. Btw, the pages load quickly.
Annatar 10y ago
the guy says he's not an idiot then brags about spending $30 per month on a VPS (idiot), You can always go with cheap, fully virtualized GNU/Linux server, or you can go with a virtual, true UNIX server running at the speed of bare metal[1]. Your choice, but quality, correctness of operation, data integrity and performance still cost something. It you don't care about any of those things, fork out $5 for the alternative and call it a day. [1] http://www.joyent.com/ http://www.joyent.com/
- webtechgal 10y ago
  Not disrespecting your opinion here, but $5 Digital Ocean droplets[1] have been working quite well for me as well as for nearly two dozens of my clients, spanning across the last several years (taking into account all the four important parameters you've specified: quality, correctness of operation, data integrity and performance). My (limited) experience with Vultr[2] has also been fairly satisfactory. [1] https://www.digitalocean.com/ https://www.digitalocean.com/ [2] https://www.vultr.com/pricing/ https://www.vultr.com/pricing/
  - Annatar 10y ago
    As far as I am aware, Digital Ocean is running on Linux, and because Linux requires turning off memory overcommit and integrating ZFS on Linux, at a minimum, there is no correctness of operation. As there is no fault management architecture (like fmadm), and support for debugging the kernel and binaries is incomplete (no mdb, no kernel debug mode, no kdb, incomplete DWARF support), there really can be no assertion about correctness of operation. Correctness of operation does not only refer to end-to-end data integrity, but also to adequate capability to diagnose and inspect system state, in addition to being able to deliver correct output in face of severe software or hardware failures. Linux is out as far as all of those. In other words, if you want JustWorks(SM), rock solid substrate for (web)applications, anybody not running on FreeBSD, OpenBSD, or some illumos derivative like SmartOS is out, at least for me. Perhaps your deployment is different, but I don't want to have to wake up in the middle of the night. I want for the OS to continue working correctly even if hardware underneath is busted, so I can deal with it on my own schedule, and not that of managers'.

mikepurvis 10y ago

Also, whether the VPS has an SSD or not is totally irrelevant— if you really were serving a single page it would be cached in the memory of your webserver. (Or better yet, serve the thing off S3 and let Amazon be your CDN.)

simbalion 10y ago
I'm not saying a VPS is not appropriate for a static HTML web-page, but there are perfectly capable VPSes avaible for $3.50 to $5. I'm not in agreement with many of the commenters regarding CDNs. I don't believe in a free lunch. Free software is one thing, but CDNs require infrastructure, which incur costs. Somewhere, the people offering those services expect to make those costs back. You'll either pay for it directly, or you'll pay for leeching off someone else's bill in karma. For a very tiny, low-traffic, low-bandwidth website, I think not using a CDN is perfectly reasonable.
- ajdlinux 10y ago
  Economies of scale...
  - dragontamer 10y ago
    Get a decent shared host. Just because Godaddy sucks doesn't mean that all shared hosting sucks. NearlyFreeSpeech.net is fine for most people, or Amazon S3 if you're into AWS / webgui stuff. If you're actually using a decent amount of bandwidth (ie: image hosting), something like Hawkhost.com would be good. Just gotta stay away from EIG (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_International_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_International_Group), which is a conglomerate that's buying up all the shared hosts and making them crappy. Bam. Now you have economies of scale AND far cheaper hosting than any VPS.
    - simbalion 10y ago
      Keeping in mind that you can get a VPS for as low as $3.50 per month, I don't see that there is ever a reason to use shared hosting, and several reasons not to, performance is only one of them. If you're website is that unimportant, then you could probably get by with any free hosting services where your page would be yourpage.serviceprovider.tld
collinmanderson 10y ago
I'd use github pages.
meowface 10y ago
Hell, I'd just use my Dropbox account.
- fakename 10y ago
  Dropbox is disabling html hosting on October 3rd
  - meowface 10y ago
    Ah, shame. I imagine it's for security reasons, though, so I can't blame them.
tzakrajs 10y ago
Exactly, it is not a good argument. I think they may not know better yet. We all start somewhere.

vacri 10y ago

Where does it say that the VPS is used only for that one page?

failrate 10y ago
It doesn't. It isn't. It appears that there are other projects hosted on the same site. Btw, the pages load quickly.

Annatar 10y ago

the guy says he's not an idiot then brags about spending $30 per month on a VPS (idiot), You can always go with cheap, fully virtualized GNU/Linux server, or you can go with a virtual, true UNIX server running at the speed of bare metal[1]. Your choice, but quality, correctness of operation, data integrity and performance still cost something. It you don't care about any of those things, fork out $5 for the alternative and call it a day. [1] http://www.joyent.com/ http://www.joyent.com/

webtechgal 10y ago
Not disrespecting your opinion here, but $5 Digital Ocean droplets[1] have been working quite well for me as well as for nearly two dozens of my clients, spanning across the last several years (taking into account all the four important parameters you've specified: quality, correctness of operation, data integrity and performance). My (limited) experience with Vultr[2] has also been fairly satisfactory. [1] https://www.digitalocean.com/ https://www.digitalocean.com/ [2] https://www.vultr.com/pricing/ https://www.vultr.com/pricing/
- Annatar 10y ago
  As far as I am aware, Digital Ocean is running on Linux, and because Linux requires turning off memory overcommit and integrating ZFS on Linux, at a minimum, there is no correctness of operation. As there is no fault management architecture (like fmadm), and support for debugging the kernel and binaries is incomplete (no mdb, no kernel debug mode, no kdb, incomplete DWARF support), there really can be no assertion about correctness of operation. Correctness of operation does not only refer to end-to-end data integrity, but also to adequate capability to diagnose and inspect system state, in addition to being able to deliver correct output in face of severe software or hardware failures. Linux is out as far as all of those. In other words, if you want JustWorks(SM), rock solid substrate for (web)applications, anybody not running on FreeBSD, OpenBSD, or some illumos derivative like SmartOS is out, at least for me. Perhaps your deployment is different, but I don't want to have to wake up in the middle of the night. I want for the OS to continue working correctly even if hardware underneath is busted, so I can deal with it on my own schedule, and not that of managers'.