4 ms·
Yes, I host my blog that way: - Generate static files using Pelican - Dump the files to S3 - Set up Route53 to point a domain at the bucket - Set up CloudFr
by Luuseens 9y ago
Yes, I host my blog that way:
- Generate static files using Pelican
- Dump the files to S3
- Set up Route53 to point a domain at the bucket
- Set up CloudFront (Amazon's CDN) to sit in front of the S3 bucket, since I found pure S3 to be too slow
Works incredibly well.
- RonInDune 9y agoFor some reason that feels like cheating on a test but it's brilliant nevertheless. I think I'll try it with the 15 local corner shop sites that I'm hosting out of the goodness of my heart. Thanks!
- Pxtl 9y agoWhy use Amazon for static pages? My github page works just fine.
- projektir 9y agoI believe Amazon is more robust if your website gets hit by a lot of traffic.
- Jack000 9y agokeep in mind S3 bandwidth is roughly 20~30x more expensive than a VPS. I put my photo/video blog on S3 reasoning that it'll handle spikes better. At one point it reached the front page of HN and cost me $450. Afterward I looked at the logs and found that my single $20 linode would have handled it fine...
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- stephenr 9y agoI assume you mean data transfer rather than bandwidth, but an often overlooked factor nonetheless.
- mabbo 9y agoDefinitely depends on your requirements. AWS can indeed charge a bit for bandwidth. But if you're talking about small static websites, AWS gives you an easy interface, Cloudfront, Route53, etc. It's a very easy way to do some very complex things. You might also look into billing alarms. I've got some simple background jobs that I run on lambda, pulling some files to S3 every hour. It costs me a buck or two a month. But if it ever looks like it might charge me $20, it will alarm and email me.
- nhatbui 9y agoHow much does all this cost you per month?
- aaronbrethorst 9y agoProbably about 10 cents.