4 ms·
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 ho
by 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 agoMy 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)