Hacker News Reader

Comment by tick_tock_tick | Hacker News Reader

> screw their wedging themselves between web operators and web users

Web operators choose to use them; hell they even pay Cloudflare to be between them. Seriously I just think you don't understand how bad it is to run a site without someone in-front of it.

View on HN

I run a site that is a primary source of information. We also have customers that subscribe and are very sensitive to heavy handed controls. Before cloudflare and after "AI" we had bots from all over just destroying our endpoints with bursts of mining traffic. While we would love to have more discoverability this is not that. Cloudflare is in a tough spot trying to arbitrate good traffic vs bad. From my experience they are doing this as good as one can.

Couldn’t agree more — Much like running my own DNS or email server, I don’t think I’ll ever go back to running my own website directly on the internet. It’s just not worth the hassle. For stuff only I use, it sits behind my VPN. For anything that _must_ be public, it’s going behind a WAF someone else can run.

They don't have to, but they're tricked into doing so. Via marketing.

I miss the 90s, too, but these days anyone who wants to deal with current levels of bot traffic is probably going to look at a service like Cloudflare as much cheaper than the amount of ops time they’d otherwise spend keeping things up and secure.

You could just, like, not make a website that takes several seconds to handle each request.

I let bots hit Gitea 2-3 times per second on a $10/month VPS, and the only actual problem was that it doesn't seem to ever delete zip snapshots, filling up the disk when enough snapshot links are clicked. So I disabled that feature by setting the snapshots folder read-only. There were no other problems. I mention Gitea because people complain about having to protect Gitea a lot, for some reason.

Sure, I’ve been doing that since the 90s. I still pay for hardware and egress, and it turns out that everything has limits for the amount of traffic it can handle which bots can easily saturate. I’ve had sites which were mostly Varnish serving cached content at wire speed go down because they saturated the upstream.

I hope 2-3 requests per second is not that limit, or you're fucked.

It’s not, but you’re off by 3+ orders of magnitude on the traffic volume and ignoring the cost of serving non-trivial responses.

It is on a simple WordPress install with the top 4 most used plugins, when you don't have a Caching Reverse Proxy like Cloudflare to filter bad traffic and serve fully cached pages from POP nodes located near the visitors.

The alternative, of course, is to set up a caching system server-side (like Redis), which most people who set up their WordPress blog don't have the first idea how to do in a secure way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com