6 ms·

> and basically completely static content If one looks at the Wayback Machine's snapshot of this thread's blog post, the right sidebar of recent comments and l

by jasode 4y ago

> and basically completely static content If one looks at the Wayback Machine's snapshot of this thread's blog post, the right sidebar of recent comments and links appear to be dynamically generated. https://web.archive.org/web/20220831120513/http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/5654 https://web.archive.org/web/20220831120513/http://lambda-the...

jvanderbot 4y ago
a cron-job that hourly scrapes comments and pushes the sidebar as html to s3 would be just fine, thanks. Who needs minute-by-minute playback if it requires dedicated machines to admin, and slows down delivery of content when under load.
- marginalia_nu 4y ago
  Seems a bit over-engineered to involve the cloud. Put it in a file on disk instead.
  - jvanderbot 4y ago
    I normally think that. But I've really enjoyed hosting in s3. It's painless and fast.
- swatcoder 4y ago
  Given the choice between running a few coherent scripts to host my niche community site and architecting a high-performance community content distribution platform with an AWS account and variable, uncapped costs, I too would choose the latter. But that’s also why I don’t stand up a lot of these sites. Maybe it’s overkill?
  - jvanderbot 4y ago
    It really seems people hate hosting in s3. It was way faster to push my html than it was to stand up a server, set up https, etc, and host it myself. But the point I wanted to make was that static content is painfully easy to host and almost infinitely scalable by itself
    - bsder 4y ago
      > It really seems people hate hosting in s3. Read the parent comment. People running small sites hate "variable, uncapped costs" and consequently hate AWS. Amazon could do something about this. People complain about this constantly. The fact that Amazon actively chooses not to do something about this speaks quite loudly to their intentions.
      - jvanderbot 4y ago
        This is fair. It was my mistake to bring up my preferred method of hosting static sites, because that dredges up vitriol around that method. My point was that it's almost trivial to get 80% of the functionality of a dynamic site with a static site.

by jasode 4y ago

jvanderbot 4y ago

a cron-job that hourly scrapes comments and pushes the sidebar as html to s3 would be just fine, thanks. Who needs minute-by-minute playback if it requires dedicated machines to admin, and slows down delivery of content when under load.

marginalia_nu 4y ago
Seems a bit over-engineered to involve the cloud. Put it in a file on disk instead.
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  I normally think that. But I've really enjoyed hosting in s3. It's painless and fast.
swatcoder 4y ago
Given the choice between running a few coherent scripts to host my niche community site and architecting a high-performance community content distribution platform with an AWS account and variable, uncapped costs, I too would choose the latter. But that’s also why I don’t stand up a lot of these sites. Maybe it’s overkill?
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  It really seems people hate hosting in s3. It was way faster to push my html than it was to stand up a server, set up https, etc, and host it myself. But the point I wanted to make was that static content is painfully easy to host and almost infinitely scalable by itself
  - bsder 4y ago
    > It really seems people hate hosting in s3. Read the parent comment. People running small sites hate "variable, uncapped costs" and consequently hate AWS. Amazon could do something about this. People complain about this constantly. The fact that Amazon actively chooses not to do something about this speaks quite loudly to their intentions.
    - jvanderbot 4y ago
      This is fair. It was my mistake to bring up my preferred method of hosting static sites, because that dredges up vitriol around that method. My point was that it's almost trivial to get 80% of the functionality of a dynamic site with a static site.