3 ms·
If you want to go super-minimal at the cost of being more dependent on Amazon, you can deploy the static website on S3 and use Route53 as an HTTP frontend.
by CapacitorSet 8y ago
If you want to go super-minimal at the cost of being more dependent on Amazon, you can deploy the static website on S3 and use Route53 as an HTTP frontend.
- kowdermeister 8y agoLast week I learned that if you configure your bucket name the same as your domain, then a simple CNAME record will work without Route53.
- urschrei 8y agoI don't think you can make SSL work on AWS without Route53, though. Which is (for better or worse) about to become a big problem when Google starts penalising non-SSL sites. You also can't make a AAAA record, so no IPv6.
- seeekr 8y agoPut Cloudflare in front for SSL. Not sure if that makes the solution more or less complex, never worked with Route53.
- estsauver 8y agoAs of two years ago, there was a bug with mobile safari and hash fragment preservation, which actually made using a lot of client side JS code very difficult to use directly from s3.
- cloverich 8y agoThis is what I do on Google cloud, presumably the same. CloudFlare for ssl, google Cloud DNS, then a Google bucket. Real simple, real fast.
- ztoben 8y agoYep, this is what I do for my site. 51 cents a month.