3 ms·

I use IPFS and host my media (mainly photography) on my domain. (With cloudflare as a IPFS gateway in case a visitor doesn't use IPFS) Hosting cost: $0. Some

I use IPFS and host my media (mainly photography) on my domain. (With cloudflare as a IPFS gateway in case a visitor doesn't use IPFS) Hosting cost: $0. Some details: https://fabian.social/posts/2020-11-07-ipfs-blogging.html https://fabian.social/posts/2020-11-07-ipfs-blogging.html Example: https://fabian.social/photography/2021-01-15-incidentes-viales.html https://fabian.social/photography/2021-01-15-incidentes-vial...

reedjosh 5y ago
Wow, thanks for the example. I've been wanting to do this myself soon.
robjan 5y ago
There's a small cost of keeping your computer on 24/7 if you aren't using a pinning service, but it can be pretty cheap if you use something like a raspberry pi
- fabianhjr 5y ago
  Cloudflare does some caching, in my experience up to a week, and pinata.cloud (pinning service) has a great free tier and API.
jonpurdy 5y ago
I’ve briefly tried hosting with IPFS in the past and always found it to be super slow/not working at all. If one has a super low traffic site and is already hosting themselves (whether on a home computer or VPS), what’s the benefit of IPFS? My understanding is that if a file isn’t popular, it’ll be served by your own IPFS node/pulled from your local web server, which seems redundant to me. (I totally get the use case for popular files; it’s awesome for that!)
- fabianhjr 5y ago
  My main argument (even for low traffic sites) is the following: > Centralized personal sites/blogs become fragile and expensive while a decent(ralized) alternative (like what is in use here) is anti-fragile and inexpensive. > The only costs are the domain registration and running my own computer (where the IPFS daemon takes less than 1% of my cpu usage and 200 MB of memory) and some bandwidth. > The more popular something is, the more peers replicate it. > As such more bandwidth and redundant fetch locations become available that could get the content to you (the reader) at lower latencies. (It is challenging to do a hug of death / slashdotting on such sites/blogs)
tantalor 5y ago
Video consumes quite a bit more than imagery.
- fabianhjr 5y ago
  Though, if you are creating videos you would keep at least your original project export locally (either on your computer or a NAS) so exposing the content wouldn't require additional space.
Zababa 5y ago
That's a good example. I've visited a few IPFS websites and they were terribly slow to load, but yours was as fast as a regular blog.
Popegaf 5y ago
That's nice information to have. Cloudfare IPFS is new to me. Seems to be like the ipfs.io gateway. I think it would be really cool if there some super easy way to do IPFS blogging. Some GUI or CLI that you point at a repo for the source, then a host with a username, password or SSH key, a dropdown with your domain name registrar and your username+password, and finally a big "deploy" button. DNS-link is no fun setting up and maintaining. Sure, you can write your own scripts and connect everything to a CI/CD, but for budding developers that's a lot of work.

reedjosh 5y ago

Wow, thanks for the example. I've been wanting to do this myself soon.

robjan 5y ago

There's a small cost of keeping your computer on 24/7 if you aren't using a pinning service, but it can be pretty cheap if you use something like a raspberry pi

fabianhjr 5y ago
Cloudflare does some caching, in my experience up to a week, and pinata.cloud (pinning service) has a great free tier and API.

jonpurdy 5y ago

I’ve briefly tried hosting with IPFS in the past and always found it to be super slow/not working at all. If one has a super low traffic site and is already hosting themselves (whether on a home computer or VPS), what’s the benefit of IPFS? My understanding is that if a file isn’t popular, it’ll be served by your own IPFS node/pulled from your local web server, which seems redundant to me. (I totally get the use case for popular files; it’s awesome for that!)

fabianhjr 5y ago
My main argument (even for low traffic sites) is the following: > Centralized personal sites/blogs become fragile and expensive while a decent(ralized) alternative (like what is in use here) is anti-fragile and inexpensive. > The only costs are the domain registration and running my own computer (where the IPFS daemon takes less than 1% of my cpu usage and 200 MB of memory) and some bandwidth. > The more popular something is, the more peers replicate it. > As such more bandwidth and redundant fetch locations become available that could get the content to you (the reader) at lower latencies. (It is challenging to do a hug of death / slashdotting on such sites/blogs)

tantalor 5y ago

Video consumes quite a bit more than imagery.

fabianhjr 5y ago
Though, if you are creating videos you would keep at least your original project export locally (either on your computer or a NAS) so exposing the content wouldn't require additional space.

Zababa 5y ago

That's a good example. I've visited a few IPFS websites and they were terribly slow to load, but yours was as fast as a regular blog.

Popegaf 5y ago

That's nice information to have. Cloudfare IPFS is new to me. Seems to be like the ipfs.io gateway. I think it would be really cool if there some super easy way to do IPFS blogging. Some GUI or CLI that you point at a repo for the source, then a host with a username, password or SSH key, a dropdown with your domain name registrar and your username+password, and finally a big "deploy" button. DNS-link is no fun setting up and maintaining. Sure, you can write your own scripts and connect everything to a CI/CD, but for budding developers that's a lot of work.