3 ms·
That's completely false. Hosting a static website on S3 is very well documented.
by cenhyperion 13y ago
That's completely false. Hosting a static website on S3 is very well documented.
- philfreo 13y agoyes but the recommended approach is to put CloudFront in front of it, if you care about performance at all
- res0nat0r 13y agoI think the point of their post, is that this is their "oh shit we are down" setup, which will consist of a small static site that S3 will happily serve up to anyone anywhere in the world very quickly. This isn't meant to be a full wack highly performant copy of their existing website fronted by CDN's.
- edwintorok 13y agoAnd how reliable is it? There have been reports about S3 returning 50x errors, when (as documented) the client should retry. A browser is not an S3 client, so it won't retry ... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4976893 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4976893 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4977360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4977360 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4981482 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4981482 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2897959 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2897959