6 ms·

Why do we need to make everything so complicated and fancy? I am not trying to be rude but I hate this trend of everything needs to be hosted on AWS and pay hun

Why do we need to make everything so complicated and fancy? I am not trying to be rude but I hate this trend of everything needs to be hosted on AWS and pay hundreds of dollars. Why not dump these static files into a shared hosting? It shouldn't cost you more than couple of bucks a month. You get SSL, Email, sub-domains, SSL, logs and much more for couple of bucks a month.

root993 6y ago
Not exactly sure what you mean by shared hosting. Could you elaborate? Also would this be hosted behind a CDN?
- travbrack 6y ago
  I think they mean a traditional web host that has a ton of sites crammed into a single server and a cpanel. Like bluehost, dreamhost, etc.
  - root993 6y ago
    Ah, I see but hosting the site behind a CDN is imperative in our case so this would not work
docsapp_io 6y ago
One point mentioned in the article is the caching for global users and shared hosting does not give you that. At most you can replace S3 with shared hosting, not CDN part.
- iagovar 6y ago
  I have shared + Cloudflare for Spain and Latin America audiences and it works pretty well. IDK AWS is for other purposes, for simple apps it's not worth it IMO.
kesor 6y ago
The article explains how to do it without complicating it with shared hosting, and it only cost $.8/mo for 100k visits. Not knowing something doesn't mean its complicated, it just means it is unfamiliar, for you. Once you did this several dozen times, its the simplest thing ever.
- nabaraz 6y ago
  With AWS, your costs are unpredictable. You could be spammed or some search bots decide to go haywire and you will incur hundreds of dollars. The second thing is AWS is very expensive for what it does. Do you need to add DNS records? There is Route 53 which costs extra. Do you need emails? There is AWS Simple Email which costs extra. Do you need logs? The storage cost (although little) is added to your bill. Do you need databases? Do you need support? All I am saying is that shared hosting should be first considered for static websites.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - chiefalchemist 6y ago
    Yes and no. Flip it around. AWS let's you not pay for things you don't need. Then, if there's a biz requirement for something else, you make that _investment_. Of course there are alternatives. But shared hosting is a roll of the dice. For a hobby project or POC? Sure, start with shared. But if you're certain shared is not a semi-longer term option don't wasteyour time. Shared is cheap for a reason. Saving a couple dollars will dry up quickly in downtime and headache time.
  - gonzo41 6y ago
    All of those things cost money and effort to maintain. Im not a super AWS fanboy but each IaaS component is a feature that's easy-ish to do on your own with a server and some software. When you go server less or cloud native you have to really think about the bits of tech that bring real value. If you look at the free tier limits, and monthly costs. Putting a simple rest app behind API gateway with a few buckets and a little lambda gives you a whole lot of bang for very little cost. If you're a person in a region and your website is going to get bursty use by people in your region then it's a pretty cheap deal. Monthly costs < 1 coffee for a blog or some non trivial page.
fortran77 6y ago
If your site can be hosted on S3, with free-tier CloudFront caching, it will be under $1.00/month for a few hundred thousand views.
- milankragujevic 6y ago
  You can put CloudFlare in front and turn on forced caching for all content. I checked multiple times with @jgrahamc and he assured me (and other people) that the free tier is really free and force caching static files for website (so not massive media hosting) is allowed and OK. You can set edge cache TTL to a month and have CloudFlare keep your site appearing "up" even if the backend server is down completely.
f311a 6y ago
I see your point, but shared hosting is not a reliable solution. It fails pretty often (for a very short time) because it’s shared. You need a CDN. There are a lot of cheap options. A few missed orders can cost you more.
- risyachka 6y ago
  Cloudflare free tier should be enough in most cases.
  - ies7 6y ago
    And replace s3 with backblaze b2
    - christophilus 6y ago
      Or Wasabi, which is a drop in replacement for S3. B2 still doesn’t support direct signed uploads from the browser, last I checked.
      - ies7 6y ago
        Wasabi has that 90 days storage policy that makes it complicated for me.
artiscode 6y ago
You provide a valid point, but where's the hacker factor in choosing something readily available? 100k views for under $1 seems like the true hacker spirit, utilizing whatever AWS offers without breaking the bank.
flywheel 6y ago
I'm hosting a photo sharing SPA on S3/Cloudfront/Lambda with a robust user system including email verification, and a few GB of image files, and I pay $0.25/month at most. Yeah, it's a personal/friends-only site so it doesn't see much traffic, but that was kind of the point - I wanted to pay next to nothing for this site if nobody visits it, and it is working well for that. $3.00/year is pretty cheap.

root993 6y ago

Not exactly sure what you mean by shared hosting. Could you elaborate? Also would this be hosted behind a CDN?

travbrack 6y ago
I think they mean a traditional web host that has a ton of sites crammed into a single server and a cpanel. Like bluehost, dreamhost, etc.
- root993 6y ago
  Ah, I see but hosting the site behind a CDN is imperative in our case so this would not work

docsapp_io 6y ago

One point mentioned in the article is the caching for global users and shared hosting does not give you that. At most you can replace S3 with shared hosting, not CDN part.

iagovar 6y ago
I have shared + Cloudflare for Spain and Latin America audiences and it works pretty well. IDK AWS is for other purposes, for simple apps it's not worth it IMO.

kesor 6y ago

The article explains how to do it without complicating it with shared hosting, and it only cost $.8/mo for 100k visits. Not knowing something doesn't mean its complicated, it just means it is unfamiliar, for you. Once you did this several dozen times, its the simplest thing ever.

nabaraz 6y ago
With AWS, your costs are unpredictable. You could be spammed or some search bots decide to go haywire and you will incur hundreds of dollars. The second thing is AWS is very expensive for what it does. Do you need to add DNS records? There is Route 53 which costs extra. Do you need emails? There is AWS Simple Email which costs extra. Do you need logs? The storage cost (although little) is added to your bill. Do you need databases? Do you need support? All I am saying is that shared hosting should be first considered for static websites.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- chiefalchemist 6y ago
  Yes and no. Flip it around. AWS let's you not pay for things you don't need. Then, if there's a biz requirement for something else, you make that _investment_. Of course there are alternatives. But shared hosting is a roll of the dice. For a hobby project or POC? Sure, start with shared. But if you're certain shared is not a semi-longer term option don't wasteyour time. Shared is cheap for a reason. Saving a couple dollars will dry up quickly in downtime and headache time.
- gonzo41 6y ago
  All of those things cost money and effort to maintain. Im not a super AWS fanboy but each IaaS component is a feature that's easy-ish to do on your own with a server and some software. When you go server less or cloud native you have to really think about the bits of tech that bring real value. If you look at the free tier limits, and monthly costs. Putting a simple rest app behind API gateway with a few buckets and a little lambda gives you a whole lot of bang for very little cost. If you're a person in a region and your website is going to get bursty use by people in your region then it's a pretty cheap deal. Monthly costs < 1 coffee for a blog or some non trivial page.

fortran77 6y ago

If your site can be hosted on S3, with free-tier CloudFront caching, it will be under $1.00/month for a few hundred thousand views.

milankragujevic 6y ago
You can put CloudFlare in front and turn on forced caching for all content. I checked multiple times with @jgrahamc and he assured me (and other people) that the free tier is really free and force caching static files for website (so not massive media hosting) is allowed and OK. You can set edge cache TTL to a month and have CloudFlare keep your site appearing "up" even if the backend server is down completely.

f311a 6y ago

I see your point, but shared hosting is not a reliable solution. It fails pretty often (for a very short time) because it’s shared. You need a CDN. There are a lot of cheap options. A few missed orders can cost you more.

risyachka 6y ago
Cloudflare free tier should be enough in most cases.
- ies7 6y ago
  And replace s3 with backblaze b2
  - christophilus 6y ago
    Or Wasabi, which is a drop in replacement for S3. B2 still doesn’t support direct signed uploads from the browser, last I checked.
    - ies7 6y ago
      Wasabi has that 90 days storage policy that makes it complicated for me.

artiscode 6y ago

You provide a valid point, but where's the hacker factor in choosing something readily available? 100k views for under $1 seems like the true hacker spirit, utilizing whatever AWS offers without breaking the bank.

flywheel 6y ago

I'm hosting a photo sharing SPA on S3/Cloudfront/Lambda with a robust user system including email verification, and a few GB of image files, and I pay $0.25/month at most. Yeah, it's a personal/friends-only site so it doesn't see much traffic, but that was kind of the point - I wanted to pay next to nothing for this site if nobody visits it, and it is working well for that. $3.00/year is pretty cheap.