Re:Startups should run on cloud providers
by joshribakoff on Friday August 04, 2017 @11:28AM
(#14929405)
Linode is 40x cheaper for bandwidth than aws. It's also easier to setup an nginx cache than screw around with cloudlfare and the associated vendor lock in. I also found that my PDF files don't load in internet explorer if hosted on aws, but load fine when hosted on my linode. Apparently having a $1,000 aws bill doesn't qualify us to receive support. Be wary of the cloud and the associated hype and lock in.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Startups should run on cloud providers
by cookiecaper on Friday August 04, 2017 @11:45AM
(#14929543)
Also note that Linode is not even non-cloud. The fact is just that AWS is very expensive.
Aws is comparable to linode if you don't use all the amazon services (and you shouldn't use them - it's vendor lock in at its best. Best for amazon).
But comparing cloud flare to nginx cache is apples to oranges. Linode nginx cache cannot sink a modern DDOS attack
Re:Startups should run on cloud providers
by joshribakoff on Monday August 14, 2017 @03:42PM
(#15012082)
> But comparing cloud flare to nginx cache is apples to oranges.
I disagree. I don't know what Amazon is using but it could be nginx.
> Linode nginx cache cannot sink a modern DDOS attack
Which are we talking about here? linode or nginx? Linode has 40 Gbps network in, with an API to spin up more servers (implement your own auto scaling). With AWS they absorb the attack & bill me thousands of dollars. That DDOS attack will shut you down financially, but yes you will stay online. With Linode I can not only stay online, but I can afford the hosting bill after the fact.