Hacker News Reader

Comment by Someone1234 | Hacker News Reader

If that's the case then people could just use Amazon's S3. You can get a LOT of static site for 10c/month.

More likely scenario is a tiny PHP site with the database hosted elsewhere?

S3's the storage - you still have to run an httpd daemon somewhere, and even the smallest, cheapest EC2 instance will run you no less than $14 a month. (Notwithstanding the one-year-only free tier)

(Wow, I didn't know you could just serve content straight off the storage. I need to re-examine AWS.. thanks :D)

Heroku? I'm unsure what could fit into one of these VPSes but not a free-tier Heroku instance. (Which you get as many of as you like, mind you.)

Looks like you can host a static web site just using S3: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/WebsiteHostin...

You can host static sites entirely on S3: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/WebsiteHostin...

Nice to know this. One major disadvantage is no https.

If you use Cloudfront you can: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonCloudFront/latest/Developer...

Stick it behind the free cloudflare tier and you'll get ssl now for free.

S3 lets you essentially park a domain on a bucket and serve files from the URL, including .html. No additional httpd needed.

EC2's new t2.micro instance is actually $9.50/month https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2014/07/01/introd...

Yeah that is much more suited.. all the tiny php can be hosted on this without any SHELL/super user restrictions

Reply on news.ycombinator.com