3 ms·

They might have to follow up with a “why we are never using <hosting> again”

by tecoholic 1y ago

hshdhdhehd 1y ago
A 9 point HN post shouldn't bring down the server.
- stavros 1y ago
  No amount of HN popularity should bring down a static article, really.
  - koakuma-chan 1y ago
    This
  - nomilk 1y ago
    it's wordpress, so technically not static, although if it was it wouldn't have this resource problem.
    - LambdaComplex 1y ago
      Don't cache plugins exist for WordPress? Or, barring that, wouldn't CloudFlare help?
      - rezonant 1y ago
        They do, but they aren't very good. PHP is very fast, but unfortunately Wordpress is carefully designed to make it very slow.
  - selcuka 1y ago
    > Additionally, a 507 Insufficient Storage error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. They've probably forgotten to rotate web server logs.
    - stavros 1y ago
      It's back up, luckily.
  - technion 1y ago
    You might be shocked just how bad some wordpress sites are. Ive responded to web developers calling 'ddos' on sites that crashed under the Google crawl (before ai crawls misbehaved and made this more of a thing).
    - stavros 1y ago
      Oh, I'm not surprised at all, but there's absolutely no reason at all that static webpages don't at least use a caching plugin, if they insist on using WordPress.
      - toast0 1y ago
        I'm sure some of the caching plugins don't play nice with other plugins or vice versa. I once had to do terrible things to make a WordPress blog work under massive load. Actually not that terrible, I just did some manual caching; grabbed the html, saved it as index.html and made sure the webserver served that (if present) rather than WordPress for the front page, and approximately nobody clicked past the front page (I could have cached some of the article links too) Thankfully, a little while later, I had a good reason to write a rage fueled just barely dynamic replacement of WordPress that met our exact needs with data stored as files. Not as fast as static files, but page generation in < 10 ms (IIRC) is good enough most days. Sadly, I think that blog moved to something slow again, but I no longer support it.
  - 5d41402abc4b 1y ago
    Will a default config of caddy be able to handle this load?
    - stavros 1y ago
      Serving static files? It wouldn't even register.
DonHopkins 1y ago
Oh, a wise guy, ehe? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yscaDkzHqek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yscaDkzHqek
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
hank2000 1y ago
Follow up article: why were never using Wordpress again. A hacker news cautionary tale. Also. Well done wise.com. Only having customers who use Wordpress means no vitality on people posting hate for you.

They might have to follow up with a “why we are never using <hosting> again”

hshdhdhehd 1y ago

A 9 point HN post shouldn't bring down the server.

stavros 1y ago
No amount of HN popularity should bring down a static article, really.
- koakuma-chan 1y ago
  This
- nomilk 1y ago
  it's wordpress, so technically not static, although if it was it wouldn't have this resource problem.
  - LambdaComplex 1y ago
    Don't cache plugins exist for WordPress? Or, barring that, wouldn't CloudFlare help?
    - rezonant 1y ago
      They do, but they aren't very good. PHP is very fast, but unfortunately Wordpress is carefully designed to make it very slow.
- selcuka 1y ago
  > Additionally, a 507 Insufficient Storage error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. They've probably forgotten to rotate web server logs.
  - stavros 1y ago
    It's back up, luckily.
- technion 1y ago
  You might be shocked just how bad some wordpress sites are. Ive responded to web developers calling 'ddos' on sites that crashed under the Google crawl (before ai crawls misbehaved and made this more of a thing).
  - stavros 1y ago
    Oh, I'm not surprised at all, but there's absolutely no reason at all that static webpages don't at least use a caching plugin, if they insist on using WordPress.
    - toast0 1y ago
      I'm sure some of the caching plugins don't play nice with other plugins or vice versa. I once had to do terrible things to make a WordPress blog work under massive load. Actually not that terrible, I just did some manual caching; grabbed the html, saved it as index.html and made sure the webserver served that (if present) rather than WordPress for the front page, and approximately nobody clicked past the front page (I could have cached some of the article links too) Thankfully, a little while later, I had a good reason to write a rage fueled just barely dynamic replacement of WordPress that met our exact needs with data stored as files. Not as fast as static files, but page generation in < 10 ms (IIRC) is good enough most days. Sadly, I think that blog moved to something slow again, but I no longer support it.
- 5d41402abc4b 1y ago
  Will a default config of caddy be able to handle this load?
  - stavros 1y ago
    Serving static files? It wouldn't even register.

DonHopkins 1y ago

Oh, a wise guy, ehe? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yscaDkzHqek https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yscaDkzHqek

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

hank2000 1y ago

Follow up article: why were never using Wordpress again. A hacker news cautionary tale. Also. Well done wise.com. Only having customers who use Wordpress means no vitality on people posting hate for you.