6 ms·
If you're just serving static files, wouldn't a S3 website be easier and more robust?
by dirkc 3y ago
If you're just serving static files, wouldn't a S3 website be easier and more robust?
- 0xFF0123 3y agoWith unbounded running costs... There is something comforting about knowing it's always going to cost you $20.
- dirkc 3y agoTrue, didn't think about it from the limited cost perspective. Would be a lot of traffic to get you past $20, but a possibility like you say.
- sitkack 3y agoPut CF in front of that VPS and it is better than S3.
- cpach 3y agoOne can also have CloudFront before S3, IIRC.
- dirkc 3y agoThat is my goto setup for static or semi-static sites. In theory you could still see a runaway bill with CloudFront, although I haven't checked the numbers to actually see what magnitude of traffic would be needed for it to really hurt? *edit* did a quick check, based on my definition of hurt about 1,000 request per second sustained for the month or > 12TB traffic would hurt. But then again, I'm sure there is some other weird edge case that AWS bills for that could incur more severe costs with less traffic. And that is what I take 0xFF0123 to imply
- foldr 3y agoLast time I checked it was a bit clunky to get these working with HTTPS.
- dirkc 3y agoIf you use CloudFront it's easy now. Some years back you either had to do a complicated setup or pay something like 2k for a certificate!
- foldr 3y agoHmm, yeah, doesn't look too bad: https://repost.aws/knowledge-center/cloudfront-serve-static-website https://repost.aws/knowledge-center/cloudfront-serve-static-... Docs are confusing and you have to be careful to choose the option that's actually end-to-end HTTPS.
- myaccountonhn 3y agoIt's very easy these days. I use nginx+nixos for hosting and it was one line to say use https.
- foldr 3y agoI was talking about hosting a website in an S3 bucket.