4 ms·

That's fine if your site never has more than 5 concurrent users

JohnFen 4y ago
For $5/mo, you can have your site professionally hosted with quotas high enough to cover the needs of the vast majority of people. If you get into the habit of editing your site on a "real copy" on your machine at home, and copy it from there to the professionally hosted site, you're still very resistant to being deplatformed. You just hire a different host, upload your real copy there, and change where your domain name points.
- chrismorgan 4y ago
  But that’s nothing to do with self-hosting from home; that’s just regular hosting with mirroring (which is generally a good practice anyway, and nigh-ubiquitous among users of static site generators), or with the machines-as-cattle philosophy (as distinct from machines-as-pets).
  - JohnFen 4y ago
    True, I was just trying to point out that running your own independent website is possible even if your home situation makes it unrealistic. I think the "indie web" is important, and nobody who is interested should be discouraged if they can't host at home. There are ways to do it even if you have terrible internet service or a very restrictive ISP.
chrismorgan 4y ago
For people thinking this way, I say: look at your actual available bandwidth, processing power and requirements to figure out what the bottleneck will be and whether it’ll matter. If you have a 10 Mbps uplink and an average page size of 1 MB, that’s approximately one visitor per second before it becomes saturated. Ten visitors at once will find the page takes ten seconds to load instead of one. A hundred, a hundred, though by then many will give up and you may want more deliberate load management or shedding (either limiting the number of connections you’re willing to open at a time and delaying accepting new connections, or returning a brief response that says “sorry, too much load right now, try again a bit later”, or dropping some connections outright). But if you have a 100 Mbps uplink and serve simple content with no images, you might have an average page size of 20 KB, and then you could handle over 500 page loads per second, which is almost certainly several orders of magnitude more than you get (that’s a billion page loads per month). But at 500 per second, that means you can only spend 2ms of processing power (all cores, so with perfect parallelism the single-core CPU time available will be 2ms times the number of cores you have) per page served before processing power becomes the bottleneck.
compiskey 4y ago
Who asked you to provide for the world? I never did.
selfhoster11 4y ago
Why should it? If it's a small personal site, you may be getting maybe a hundred hits a month at most unless it gets popular or featured on a link aggregator.

For $5/mo, you can have your site professionally hosted with quotas high enough to cover the needs of the vast majority of people. If you get into the habit of editing your site on a "real copy" on your machine at home, and copy it from there to the professionally hosted site, you're still very resistant to being deplatformed. You just hire a different host, upload your real copy there, and change where your domain name points.

chrismorgan 4y ago
But that’s nothing to do with self-hosting from home; that’s just regular hosting with mirroring (which is generally a good practice anyway, and nigh-ubiquitous among users of static site generators), or with the machines-as-cattle philosophy (as distinct from machines-as-pets).
- JohnFen 4y ago
  True, I was just trying to point out that running your own independent website is possible even if your home situation makes it unrealistic. I think the "indie web" is important, and nobody who is interested should be discouraged if they can't host at home. There are ways to do it even if you have terrible internet service or a very restrictive ISP.

chrismorgan 4y ago

For people thinking this way, I say: look at your actual available bandwidth, processing power and requirements to figure out what the bottleneck will be and whether it’ll matter. If you have a 10 Mbps uplink and an average page size of 1 MB, that’s approximately one visitor per second before it becomes saturated. Ten visitors at once will find the page takes ten seconds to load instead of one. A hundred, a hundred, though by then many will give up and you may want more deliberate load management or shedding (either limiting the number of connections you’re willing to open at a time and delaying accepting new connections, or returning a brief response that says “sorry, too much load right now, try again a bit later”, or dropping some connections outright). But if you have a 100 Mbps uplink and serve simple content with no images, you might have an average page size of 20 KB, and then you could handle over 500 page loads per second, which is almost certainly several orders of magnitude more than you get (that’s a billion page loads per month). But at 500 per second, that means you can only spend 2ms of processing power (all cores, so with perfect parallelism the single-core CPU time available will be 2ms times the number of cores you have) per page served before processing power becomes the bottleneck.

compiskey 4y ago

Who asked you to provide for the world? I never did.

selfhoster11 4y ago

Why should it? If it's a small personal site, you may be getting maybe a hundred hits a month at most unless it gets popular or featured on a link aggregator.