I have my site in an S3 bucket with the static-site flag activated. It would not win for 'easiest'. However, it's the only thing in my personal AWS account right now and my monthly bill is $0.83
I mean, if there's a chance, however remote, that you might end up as the #1 of reddit or whatever, stay away from S3. Your site won't go down, but oh god, you pay for that.
An S3 bucket is intended as storage, not retrieval. Downloading from S3 means grabbing shards. You should put a proper CDN, like CloudFront or Cloudflare, in front.
Cloudflare at minimum it's free as well and will protect you from bad actors which will save you $ if someone starts an infinite loop requesting your site.
Why, if his monthly bill is 83 cents, and he values his time? Does not using a CDN impact performance in a crippling way that neither me nor the poster you're replying to understands?
Performance maybe a little bit, but IIRC you, as the owner of the bucket, pay for bandwidth out.
Putting it being a CDN protects you (at least a little bit) from the possibility of a huge bandwidth bill at the end of the month if someone realizes they can attack your wallet directly by trying to ddos your site.
Eh, only if you've done it before. If it's your first time, it can easily take 30 mins to an hour, if you also have to figure out how to host the website on Route 53.
Well, sure, but every suggestion is going to take some time if you've never done it before. It's not like it's an obscure skill that you'll never use, it's pretty handy to know.
> Does not using a CDN impact performance in a crippling way that neither me nor the poster you're replying to understands?
It adds up to 600ms of latency for each roundtrip. A modern website without link rel=preload is several roundtrips– download HTML page, then do JS requests and CSS, so that's ~1.2s of additional latency.
Because he succumbed to AWS' marketing. Surge, mentioned downthread, lets you deploy a folder for free on a worldwide CDN with virtually no setup.
