5 ms·

Seems like this site could used a caching CDN lol

K0nserv 3y ago
The author seems to be serving it from their home network at 7Mbps upstream, which probably isn't quite up to handling HN front page levels of traffic
- farmdve 3y ago
  I didn't know people still did that.
  - mnw21cam 3y ago
    I still do that.
  - avhception 3y ago
    I would love to, but I'd very much prefer a static IP for that (instead of reverse proxy / wireguard shenanigans) but getting one is prohibitively expensive where I live. Basically, I'd need to purchase the big business package from my ISP.
  - superkuh 3y ago
    Lots do. I have since 1998. It's only become easier and better with time. Join us.
    - Dylan16807 3y ago
      Home hosting is neat but I'm not going to use the phrase "easier and better" unless I'm talking to someone with a much faster upload than single digit Mbps.
      - superkuh 3y ago
        Single digit mbps is fine for 99.9% of the time. The slashdot effect would take down shared hosting just as easily.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        With image-rich content, 5mbps will be visibly sluggish with only one visitor and even a few people you know poking it at the same time well have a bad experience. Judging by https://unixism.net/2020/05/what-kind-of-traffic-does-hacker-news-generate/ https://unixism.net/2020/05/what-kind-of-traffic-does-hacker... and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30481230 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30481230, surviving a couple loads per second up to 25 will get you through many slashdottings, and with a solid symmetrical home connection you have a very good chance. If you have video, you're not going to survive a slashdotting, but 5Mbps will let you have about one viewer with a smooth experience, while 20-30 viewers could watch the same content on 100Mbps. Or maybe you want to deliver 4k and it's zero versus several peak viewers.
        superkuh 3y ago
        The best part about personal websites is that you don't have to survive 99.99% of the time. It's okay if people can't access it for a day. No big deal.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        If I want to tell my friends about a new post, I want several of them to be able to click the link at the same time! And not feel like they're walking through mud. This isn't about getting tons of nines of uptime, this is about people enjoying the page a strong majority of the time they're visiting. That needs a certain amount of speed unless it's a super lightweight page.
        superkuh 3y ago
        It's not like when you post a link in a chat they all load it at the exact same time. It's spread out over a minute or few. I'm currently on a relatively slow Comcast connection with 5 megabits/s upload and it works just fine for hosting and posting links for several (or more) people to look at.
- arcza 3y ago
  Correct, my crappy VDSL2 connection is not cut out for this level of traffic. I am grateful for the traffic from HN nonetheless :)

The author seems to be serving it from their home network at 7Mbps upstream, which probably isn't quite up to handling HN front page levels of traffic

farmdve 3y ago
I didn't know people still did that.
- mnw21cam 3y ago
  I still do that.
- avhception 3y ago
  I would love to, but I'd very much prefer a static IP for that (instead of reverse proxy / wireguard shenanigans) but getting one is prohibitively expensive where I live. Basically, I'd need to purchase the big business package from my ISP.
- superkuh 3y ago
  Lots do. I have since 1998. It's only become easier and better with time. Join us.
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    Home hosting is neat but I'm not going to use the phrase "easier and better" unless I'm talking to someone with a much faster upload than single digit Mbps.
    - superkuh 3y ago
      Single digit mbps is fine for 99.9% of the time. The slashdot effect would take down shared hosting just as easily.
      - Dylan16807 3y ago
        With image-rich content, 5mbps will be visibly sluggish with only one visitor and even a few people you know poking it at the same time well have a bad experience. Judging by https://unixism.net/2020/05/what-kind-of-traffic-does-hacker-news-generate/ https://unixism.net/2020/05/what-kind-of-traffic-does-hacker... and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30481230 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30481230, surviving a couple loads per second up to 25 will get you through many slashdottings, and with a solid symmetrical home connection you have a very good chance. If you have video, you're not going to survive a slashdotting, but 5Mbps will let you have about one viewer with a smooth experience, while 20-30 viewers could watch the same content on 100Mbps. Or maybe you want to deliver 4k and it's zero versus several peak viewers.
        superkuh 3y ago
        The best part about personal websites is that you don't have to survive 99.99% of the time. It's okay if people can't access it for a day. No big deal.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        If I want to tell my friends about a new post, I want several of them to be able to click the link at the same time! And not feel like they're walking through mud. This isn't about getting tons of nines of uptime, this is about people enjoying the page a strong majority of the time they're visiting. That needs a certain amount of speed unless it's a super lightweight page.
        superkuh 3y ago
        It's not like when you post a link in a chat they all load it at the exact same time. It's spread out over a minute or few. I'm currently on a relatively slow Comcast connection with 5 megabits/s upload and it works just fine for hosting and posting links for several (or more) people to look at.
arcza 3y ago
Correct, my crappy VDSL2 connection is not cut out for this level of traffic. I am grateful for the traffic from HN nonetheless :)