←back to thread

What to do with an old iPad

(odb.ar)
190 points owenmakes | 2 comments | 05 Sep 25 17:14 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source

Coming back with my own blog (hosted on iPad 2) after asking here the same question
Show context
nugzbunny ◴[06 Sep 25 22:36 UTC] No.45153542[source]▶
So, if you’re reading this post right now, it means my server is working, and that this site is being served by an iPad 2 from 2012, running iOS 6.1.3 and Insomnia to keep it connected to Wi-Fi.

When I pinged your domain it came back as CloudFlare. Did you mean

So, if you’re reading this post right now, it means this site is being served CloudFlare.

I jest. I imagine you did this to keep your IP address private? Just curious why it wasn't mentioned in the blog post? My original question was going to be if your ISP may have a problem with your set up (giving it's on the front page of HN and will be experiencing some traffic).

replies(8): >>45153571 #>>45154301 #>>45154329 #>>45154716 #>>45156171 #>>45156650 #>>45157859 #>>45158710 #
lucb1e ◴[06 Sep 25 22:40 UTC] No.45153571[source]▶
> your ISP may have a problem with your set up (giving it's on the front page of HN and will be experiencing some traffic).

The page is like 30KB + that 3 MB image. The avg ~two hits per second that you get from a HN top position iirc (this is fairly old data though) is 6MB/s for a few hours, say 6 hours, that's 130GB. Unless it's hosted via a wireless uplink (4g/satellite/..), I don't think there's an ISP in the world that cares about using 130GB extra during a random month. Even in Belgium I think the caps were around twice that ten years ago

replies(2): >>45153795 #>>45153986 #
pdntspa ◴[06 Sep 25 23:58 UTC] No.45153986[source]▶
wait, top billings on HN brings in 2 hits/sec of traffic? That is an unbelievably low number considering how many sites fall over under that pressure
replies(3): >>45154178 #>>45154448 #>>45156013 #
1. lucb1e ◴[07 Sep 25 01:20 UTC] No.45154448[source]▶
Exactly. I think this shows two things quite nicely:

- Very few sites need to cope with more than a handful of hits per second. A regular DSL connection and desktop PC can host the vast majority of them; you don't need clouds if you don't want them. (Even under variable load: if you need 80% of the systems more than 40% of the time, scaling down is probably not worth the cloud premium)

- If a site can't handle HN, that's a software limitation. Compare Wordpress' insanely slow page generation to simple blog software that generates pages in 5 milliseconds, or even to hosting the blog as static HTML files. I'd not be surprised if you can serve Wikipedia's page text from like one Raspberry Pi 5 per country. Not that you'd want to do that for reliability and redundancy reasons, plus you have the constant stream of edits to process and templates to (re-)render. Media and blob hosting is also a separate beast. Thankfully, most sites are not in the top ten world's most popular websites and you get away with a lot

replies(1): >>45164224 #
2. smt88 ◴[08 Sep 25 02:40 UTC] No.45164224[source]▶
WordPress is a static host for the vast majority of users. The generation time is irrelevant. Almost by default, it will just cache the rendered page and always serve from the cache.