4 ms·
I have my site in an S3 bucket with the static-site flag activated. It would not win for 'easiest'. However, it's the only thing in my personal AWS account righ
by pgroves 6y ago
I have my site in an S3 bucket with the static-site flag activated. It would not win for 'easiest'. However, it's the only thing in my personal AWS account right now and my monthly bill is $0.83
- crazypython 6y agoAn S3 bucket is intended as storage, not retrieval. Downloading from S3 means grabbing shards. You should put a proper CDN, like CloudFront or Cloudflare, in front.
- Diederich 6y ago> You should put a proper CDN, like CloudFront or Cloudflare, in front. I understand what you're saying, but why? I assume the site in question is pretty low volume. What's wrong with serving directly from S3?
- viraptor 6y agoYou can't get https on S3. Also many interesting headers are only available via cloudfront. Also you get a little bit of protection from someone sending lots of traffic to make you spend $$$
- miyuru 6y agoS3 does not support gzip compression. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26600816 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26600816
- erikmolin 6y agoWhy, if his monthly bill is 83 cents, and he values his time? Does not using a CDN impact performance in a crippling way that neither me nor the poster you're replying to understands?
- philistine 6y agoThe big gain with putting Cloudfront in front of it is you can have HTTPS.
- dave_sid 6y agoAnd loose 30 mins of your life you’ll never get back. It’s just a person site.
- foobar33333 6y agoBrowsers will light up like a christmas tree if your site doesn't have https.
- crazypython 6y agoHTTPS gets you better SEO and the ability to be iframe'd from HTTPS sites.
- speedgoose 6y agoAnd some security.
- nrmitchi 6y agoPerformance maybe a little bit, but IIRC you, as the owner of the bucket, pay for bandwidth out. Putting it being a CDN protects you (at least a little bit) from the possibility of a huge bandwidth bill at the end of the month if someone realizes they can attack your wallet directly by trying to ddos your site.
- crazypython 6y agoI agree– AWS bandwidth out is literally 100 times more expensive than CDN and VPN bandwidth out.
- sitzkrieg 6y ago
- dave_sid 6y agoPfffffft. It’s probably a personal site with 10 visitors a week. Let’s step back a little here.
- cphajduk 6y agoAnd 9 of them are just bots.
- pgroves 6y agoThis is correct. Why would I put any more effort into it?
- gabeio 6y agoCloudflare at minimum it's free as well and will protect you from bad actors which will save you $ if someone starts an infinite loop requesting your site.
- erichurkman 6y agoLet's be real here. He clearly needs kubernetes.
- dave_sid 6y agoHahahaha
- blacha 6y agoYou can generally query any object off s3 in a few milliseconds.. I have a system doing 10s-100's of millions of reads a day from s3 with very consistent and fast read times.
- maest 6y agoYou can use CloudFront with an S3-backed static website.
- miyuru 6y agoI agree, S3 is only storage. S3 even does not support gzip compression. If you are hosting a website in s3, please put a CDN with gzip support in front.
- banana_giraffe 6y agoCheapest however, is out the window. I mean, if there's a chance, however remote, that you might end up as the #1 of reddit or whatever, stay away from S3. Your site won't go down, but oh god, you pay for that.
- lowbloodsugar 6y agoHow much though? And stick it behind CloudFront. The Free tier is 50GB and 2,000,000 requests. https://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/pricing/ https://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/pricing/
- rantwasp 6y agoyeah no. even if it gets wildly popular over night you'll only pay a few dollars
- statictype 6y agoThis terraform script takes it from 'stupidly complicated' to really really easy: cloudmaniac/static-website/aws