undefined | Better HN

0 pointseverforward7mo ago0 comments

> Because caddy/nginx/apache (any web server really) can serve that content as well as any other?

That's not really true if you care about reliability. You need 2 nodes in case one goes down/gets rebooted/etc, and then you need a way to direct traffic away from bad nodes (via DNS or a load balancer or etc).

You'll end up building half of a crappy CDN to try to make that work, and it's way more complicated than chucking CloudFlare in front of static assets.

I would be with you if this was something complicated to cache where you're server-side templating responses and can't just globally cache things, but for static HTML/CSS/JS/images it's basically 0 configuration.

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

mystifyingpoi7mo ago· 1 in thread

> That's not really true if you care about reliability

While reliability is always some concern, we are talking about a website containing docs for a nerdy tool used by a minuscule percentage of developers. No one will complain if it goes down for 1h daily.

miguel_martin7mo ago

With the uptime guarantees AWS, GCS, DO, etc. provide - it will probably 1h per 365 days accumulative (@ 99.99% uptime). 2 nodes for a simple static site is just overkill.

But, honestly, for this: just use github pages. It's OSS and GitHub is already used. They can use a separate repository to host the docs if repo size from assets are a concern (e.g. videos).

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse