4 ms·
Are there any cost advantages to hosting a static site on S3+Cloudfront when compared to other services? My first thought when reading this blog was that you c
by zalmoxes 11y ago
Are there any cost advantages to hosting a static site on S3+Cloudfront when compared to other services?
My first thought when reading this blog was that you can get the same results by placing your static content in an Nginx docker container and pushing it to ECS or Triton.
The docker container tagging would also avoid the rollback limitations mentioned in the article.
AWS offers so many ways to accomplish the same things, it's hard to figure out which solution is the most cost effective.
- fweespeech 11y agoIts better performance/availability to use a CDN and you have the same problem with any CDN, not just Amazon. https://www.keycdn.com/pricing https://www.keycdn.com/pricing $.04/GB is pretty cost effective. But yes, on a pure cost-basis, publishing it via a single $5 DO node is cheaper.
- bosdev 11y agoIn general if you can make your site static (just flat files), you should serve it from a CDN. It allows you to have edge locations closer to your users, and it gives you something which is (effectively) 100% reliable. You never have to do maintenance, never have to reboot instances or worry about scaling. It's faster, usually cheaper, and more reliable. In terms of which CDN you should use, there are a few options. CloudFront has the most edge locations, Fastly and MaxCDN are more configurable. At Eager we use CloudFront for our app (https://eager.io https://eager.io), and Fastly (with a CloudFront fallback) for the static files we serve our users. One other note is that Fastly has some cheaper SSL options than CF, particularly if you need support for Windows XP clients.