3 ms·

By not making it distributed.

• nine_k 5y ago
  What is missing from the description apparently is the SLA for the site's downtime. If it's really low, I can imagine why it was made distributed. Otherwise, I'd see that as a demo and an exercise.
  • glutamate 5y ago
    It is the author's own website, there is no contractual SLA. In any case, with a distributed architecture there are many parts that can break. Fewer moving parts means fewer broken pieces.
  • PragmaticPulp 5y ago
    > What is missing from the description apparently is the SLA for the site's downtime. > If it's really low, I can imagine why it was made distributed. If an extremely low SLA is the goal, I would not be home-rolling a distributed website technology stack. The more moving pieces you have, the more likely one of them is to fail. The recipe for a high availability, high reliability website is relatively simple in the age of Cloudflare and other cheap hosted services. Introducing a lot of complexity and home-grown solutions is the last thing you want for high availability unless you have scores of engineers to maintain it and you can't solve it through traditional means.
    • nine_k 5y ago
      While I agree in principle, a database-driven distributed site would need a bit more than cloudflare. (For a personal informational site I'd take a static site generator.)