3 ms·

This doesn't seem to be solving the root cause of the problem. Seriously, if your website can't handle bursts of traffic like HN would give - upgrade your serv

This doesn't seem to be solving the root cause of the problem. Seriously, if your website can't handle bursts of traffic like HN would give - upgrade your server. Pay more. Do it now and don't wait for it to fail. Jekyll sounds clever, but I would be interested to know the benefits of using it over learning how to cache content properly in your server side language, or just getting a better server.

nickknw 14y ago
Benefits of using static site generators from my point of view: * Don't have to worry about traffic at all. * Don't have to pay for hosting (it's free using Heroku or Github, probably other places as well). * Less moving parts, less to go wrong. For my simple personal site I don't need any server-side code and don't want it. * Still super easy (for me) to use to publish content.
- btilly 14y ago
  Free hosting is only free if your time has no value. See http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/02/09/why-i-dont-host-my-own-blog-anymore/ http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/02/09/why-i-dont-host-my-own-b... for more.
  - nickknw 14y ago
    Nope, my time has plenty of value and I'm pretty sure my hosting is still free. Patio11's article is a good one but just not relevant to my situation. I've spent 0 minutes managing hosting details since I first put my website live. That's just the way I like it. That's part of the reason I chose a static solution: less moving parts, less fuss maintaining it.
- harshreality 14y ago
  * No possibility of SQL injection * No possibility of XSS (generally, although perhaps unusual content modification via javascript could open up XSS avenues?) * No possibility of obscure dynamic language runtime bugs
bmelton 14y ago
You can cache, effectively, your entire website to Jekyll if need be, and can do so with basically just flat files vs. having to work out memcache on a shared host. Upgrading one's server isn't necessarily the de facto answer. There are a lot of other considerations to be had, specifically whether or not you care if your server can handle HN levels of traffic -- throwing money at the problem isn't necessarily the answer.
- falcolas 14y ago
  And then there's the real question for a blog - does it really need to be dynamic, and does it justify the additional costs associated with a higher quality server/higher complexity setup.
- TomGullen 14y ago
  Throwing more money should be the answer to this problem. If your server can't handle a HN burst and assuming it's not caused by your code being badly written the obvious solution is to get a better server. We're talking a few tens of dollars a month more. The time a startup founder spends trying to 'fix' the issue in another way would be better spent elsewhere. Pay more, move on.
  - bmelton 14y ago
    Ignoring the point that frankly, I probably don't care about my blog enough to do even that. The point I was trying to give was this -- my blog is not my app. My blog does not have paying customers. It may or may not be a 'foot-in-the-door' to future sales, but in the same way I'm don't throw money at titanium business cards to ensure they don't accidentally catch fire, I'm not going to throw money at my blog for similar reasons. The other point, y'know, that the article makes, is that if you're not serving static files for your blog, your blog is effectively "badly written". A static file scales to practically infinity. It's almost a guarantee that whatever else you're doing, even if it's wordpress with caching, doesn't scale as well. And again, why would I change my hosting bill from $10 a month to $100+ a month on the .01% possibility that I'll see a huge traffic spike?

nickknw 14y ago

Benefits of using static site generators from my point of view: * Don't have to worry about traffic at all. * Don't have to pay for hosting (it's free using Heroku or Github, probably other places as well). * Less moving parts, less to go wrong. For my simple personal site I don't need any server-side code and don't want it. * Still super easy (for me) to use to publish content.

btilly 14y ago
Free hosting is only free if your time has no value. See http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/02/09/why-i-dont-host-my-own-blog-anymore/ http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/02/09/why-i-dont-host-my-own-b... for more.
- nickknw 14y ago
  Nope, my time has plenty of value and I'm pretty sure my hosting is still free. Patio11's article is a good one but just not relevant to my situation. I've spent 0 minutes managing hosting details since I first put my website live. That's just the way I like it. That's part of the reason I chose a static solution: less moving parts, less fuss maintaining it.
harshreality 14y ago
* No possibility of SQL injection * No possibility of XSS (generally, although perhaps unusual content modification via javascript could open up XSS avenues?) * No possibility of obscure dynamic language runtime bugs

bmelton 14y ago

You can cache, effectively, your entire website to Jekyll if need be, and can do so with basically just flat files vs. having to work out memcache on a shared host. Upgrading one's server isn't necessarily the de facto answer. There are a lot of other considerations to be had, specifically whether or not you care if your server can handle HN levels of traffic -- throwing money at the problem isn't necessarily the answer.

falcolas 14y ago
And then there's the real question for a blog - does it really need to be dynamic, and does it justify the additional costs associated with a higher quality server/higher complexity setup.
TomGullen 14y ago
Throwing more money should be the answer to this problem. If your server can't handle a HN burst and assuming it's not caused by your code being badly written the obvious solution is to get a better server. We're talking a few tens of dollars a month more. The time a startup founder spends trying to 'fix' the issue in another way would be better spent elsewhere. Pay more, move on.
- bmelton 14y ago
  Ignoring the point that frankly, I probably don't care about my blog enough to do even that. The point I was trying to give was this -- my blog is not my app. My blog does not have paying customers. It may or may not be a 'foot-in-the-door' to future sales, but in the same way I'm don't throw money at titanium business cards to ensure they don't accidentally catch fire, I'm not going to throw money at my blog for similar reasons. The other point, y'know, that the article makes, is that if you're not serving static files for your blog, your blog is effectively "badly written". A static file scales to practically infinity. It's almost a guarantee that whatever else you're doing, even if it's wordpress with caching, doesn't scale as well. And again, why would I change my hosting bill from $10 a month to $100+ a month on the .01% possibility that I'll see a huge traffic spike?