4 ms·
If you're just building static website (HTML/CSS/JavaScript), I highly recommend just using S3: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/website-hosting-
by robbles 13y ago
If you're just building static website (HTML/CSS/JavaScript), I highly recommend just using S3:
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/website-hosting-custom-domain-walkthrough.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/website-hosti...
Quick guide:
- Create a bucket for each website, named after the domain (e.g. "myproject.mysite.com")
- Turn on static website hosting for the bucket (through the AWS Console)
- Go to your DNS provider and create a "CNAME" record pointing "myproject.mysite.com" to "myproject.mysite.com.s3-website-us-west-1.amazonaws.com" (The AWS Console will give you the exact domain to use here)
- For super-easy deployment, use s3cmd's sync utility (http://s3tools.org/s3cmd-sync http://s3tools.org/s3cmd-sync) to upload all changed files in your project:
$ s3cmd -v sync ./ s3://myproject.mysite.com/ --acl-public
- bananamansion 13y agos3? ... but couldn''t you just host a static site on github for free? whats the difference between the two?
- IanChiles 13y agoS3 isn't free, but is slightly easier to start with IMO. Besides that, no difference.
- robbles 13y agoYou can, but then you need to stay within the limitations of GitHub pages: - Needs to be versioned with git to be deployed - Space limitation (I assume, not sure what it is) - Deploying new content to S3 is a lot faster - github pages has some sort of build process with a substantial delay