5 ms·
Hello, author here. We definitely considered using other cloud providers like DO, linode, etc. But it was important for us to go with AWS because we needed som
by root993 6y ago
Hello, author here.
We definitely considered using other cloud providers like DO, linode, etc. But it was important for us to go with AWS because we needed some of the other services that AWS providers like s3, Route53, etc.
Some of our static websites are in fact hosted entirely using CloudFront + s3 combination which is something I forgot to mention in this post :)
- charlesdm 6y agoI'm not an expert on AWS, but can't you use all those services without AWS?
- setr 6y agoI'm not sure whether you're confusing AWS for some specific component of AWS, or whether you're just stating that competitors exist for those techs But for the former: AWS is a whole suite of tools -- the specified technologies (cloudfront, S3, etc) are individual (and mostly decoupled) tools within that suite
- antonvs 6y agoIf you mean can you use S3 and Route53 etc. while hosting your servers somewhere other than AWS, absolutely - people do that all the time. However in the Route53 case there are a few automatic integrations that only work with other AWS services. Not that big a deal though.
- nisten 6y agoYou can if your company can afford to pay enough to hire an entire devops team in a short time.
- TedDoesntTalk 6y agoWhy would you host a static website using s3? What's wrong with a traditional file system? You already have the load balancer.
- GordonS 6y agoWith block storage (a disk), you are going to need some compute capability to host it. Presumably with S3 you don't need that (I know you can do this with Azure Blob Storage, hosting static content directly; assume it's the same with AWS)
- sokoloff 6y agoIt is the same. S3 alone can host a static website (albeit only over http if you want a custom domain name; you need to add CloudFront [or equivalent] to get https hosting with a valid cert under a custom domain name).
- moooo99 6y agoHosting a static website using S3 can be done dirt-cheap. We were hosting our website on S3 for a while now, with a monthly bill of 1,20€ with CloudFlare CDN in front of our bucket. Another big plus is that you do not have to worry about server administration, load balancers etc.
- ggregoire 6y agoJust curious, why CloudFlare instead of CloudFront?
- benaadams 6y agoI'd assume because CloudFlare doesn't charge anything for bandwidth; so their costs are exceptionally predictable
- abiogenesis 6y agoFor a static website isn't something like Netlify easier (and cheaper, as in free)?
- unixhero 6y agoHi. Also I think you're future proofing your setup in a great way. There's no limit to what you can build. Also you get the fully fledged networking stack I assume, with VPCs, Security groups and so on. Very good read, thanks for sharing. Have an upvote.
- scarface74 6y agoI haven’t used LightSail myself, so that’s the standard disclaimer. But while you do get a VPC, as long as you are in the Lightsail world, it’s invisible. Once you graduate to full fledge AWS, you can peer your Lightsail VPC to your full fledge AWS VPC.