11 ms·
The post said 450 million pageviews, likely since November. If we make very generous assumptions and assume that each pageview is a megabyte (very generous base
by heipei 7mo ago
The post said 450 million pageviews, likely since November. If we make very generous assumptions and assume that each pageview is a megabyte (very generous based on my own experience scanning billions of websites), then that's 450TB total in traffic. If you really did 450TB per month in traffic, you would need slightly more than one gigabit line (and hence VPS), but not more than two. With Hetzner the traffic would cost you €450 or $535.
Did I get something wrong?
- lexh 7mo agoIsn’t part of Vercel’s value proposition a robust global CDN in front? Seems quite a bit different than one sweaty VM in Helsinki.
- heipei 7mo agoYes, and I didn't mean to imply that a single VPS is all you needed. But I wanted to put things into perspective for the other posters who claimed that you couldn't possibly serve a site like this from a single machine, purely in terms of performance.
- direwolf20 7mo agoSome people don't realize how big machines get. A single ordinary server can have a 4x100Gbps connection and 256 physical CPU cores.
- __jonas 7mo agoGenuine question: How is that a value proposition when Cloudflare offers a CDN for free with unlimited bandwidth, that you could just put in front of the sweaty VM in Helsinki? Not trying to be obtuse, I really don't get how other providers can compete with that, I can't imagine Vercel's CDN is so significantly superior to make it worth it.
- tracker1 7mo agoFor that matter, the entire site could be in a Cloudflare worker with all the content in R2 (no egress fees, just storage). Likely to barely exceed the $5 baseline price for a paid account. (not sure on the storage costs, but likely well under $100/mo)
- alex_sf 7mo agoThat's not worth 45k. It's barely worth anything for a typical website, tbh.
- SahAssar 7mo agoWell, https://jmail.world/jacebook-logo.png https://jmail.world/jacebook-logo.png is 670KB by itself and loaded on initial load, so I think they might have blown your suggested traffic budget and still have some optimization to do.
- heipei 7mo agoFair enough, I just loaded some pages and some of them are even bigger than 2MB. But then again those static resources would be cached client-side. So unless you have 450 million unique visitors who only ever go to one URL on your site, you are looking at significantly less per pageview. I reloaded the frontpage with caching enabled and it was ~ 30kB of data transfer.
- AceJohnny2 7mo agoHow is that image 670 KB!? Definitely some optimization low-hanging fruit there. Edit: dang, even pngcrush can't get it below 580 KB. Disappointing performance on PNG's part.
- the_fall 7mo agoBecause inexplicably, there's random pixel-level noise baked into the blue area. You can't see it unless you crank up contrast, but it makes the bitmap hard to compress losslessly. If you remove it using threshold blur, it doesn't change the appearance at all, but the size is down to 100 kB. Scale it down to a more reasonable size and you're down to 50 kB. Modern web development never ceases to amaze me.
- car 7mo agoMake it an SVG and it's down to 1kb.
- SahAssar 7mo agoNone of this is due to "modern web development". It's just about a dev not checking reasonable asset size before deploying/compiling, that has happened in web, game-dev, desktop apps, server containers, etc. etc. This should be an SVG (a few kb after proper compression) or if properly made as a PNG it'd probably be in 20-ish kb.
- sleepybrett 7mo agowell each view of an 'epstien file' is a pdf with images embeded so i think your 1mb might be not so generous.
- direwolf20 7mo agoFor high traffic check places like datapacket (no affiliation), or slightly cheaper, places like onlyservers (no paid affiliation, was a customer) or even find a transit provider and a colo and a server yourself. For $535 a month or less you can get a pretty good amount of bandwidth.