Most active commenters
  • stavros(4)

←back to thread

A change of address led to our Wise accounts being shut down

(shaun.nz)
325 points jemmyw | 13 comments | 30 Oct 25 22:41 UTC | HN request time: 0.701s | source | bottom
Show context
tecoholic ◴[30 Oct 25 22:55 UTC] No.45766370[source]▶
They might have to follow up with a “why we are never using <hosting> again”
replies(4): >>45766391 #>>45766495 #>>45766634 #>>45766640 #
1. hshdhdhehd ◴[30 Oct 25 22:57 UTC] No.45766391[source]▶
A 9 point HN post shouldn't bring down the server.
replies(1): >>45766492 #
2. stavros ◴[30 Oct 25 23:10 UTC] No.45766492[source]▶
No amount of HN popularity should bring down a static article, really.
replies(5): >>45766509 #>>45766529 #>>45766630 #>>45766879 #>>45768462 #
3. koakuma-chan ◴[30 Oct 25 23:12 UTC] No.45766509[source]▶
This
4. nomilk ◴[30 Oct 25 23:15 UTC] No.45766529[source]▶
it's wordpress, so technically not static, although if it was it wouldn't have this resource problem.
replies(1): >>45767088 #
5. selcuka ◴[30 Oct 25 23:25 UTC] No.45766630[source]▶
> Additionally, a 507 Insufficient Storage error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

They've probably forgotten to rotate web server logs.

replies(1): >>45766697 #
6. stavros ◴[30 Oct 25 23:33 UTC] No.45766697{3}[source]▶
It's back up, luckily.
7. technion ◴[30 Oct 25 23:57 UTC] No.45766879[source]▶
You might be shocked just how bad some wordpress sites are. Ive responded to web developers calling 'ddos' on sites that crashed under the Google crawl (before ai crawls misbehaved and made this more of a thing).
replies(1): >>45767012 #
8. stavros ◴[31 Oct 25 00:20 UTC] No.45767012{3}[source]▶
Oh, I'm not surprised at all, but there's absolutely no reason at all that static webpages don't at least use a caching plugin, if they insist on using WordPress.
replies(1): >>45768582 #
9. LambdaComplex ◴[31 Oct 25 00:31 UTC] No.45767088{3}[source]▶
Don't cache plugins exist for WordPress? Or, barring that, wouldn't CloudFlare help?
replies(1): >>45767245 #
10. rezonant ◴[31 Oct 25 00:58 UTC] No.45767245{4}[source]▶
They do, but they aren't very good. PHP is very fast, but unfortunately Wordpress is carefully designed to make it very slow.
11. 5d41402abc4b ◴[31 Oct 25 04:33 UTC] No.45768462[source]▶
Will a default config of caddy be able to handle this load?
replies(1): >>45769115 #
12. toast0 ◴[31 Oct 25 05:00 UTC] No.45768582{4}[source]▶
I'm sure some of the caching plugins don't play nice with other plugins or vice versa.

I once had to do terrible things to make a WordPress blog work under massive load. Actually not that terrible, I just did some manual caching; grabbed the html, saved it as index.html and made sure the webserver served that (if present) rather than WordPress for the front page, and approximately nobody clicked past the front page (I could have cached some of the article links too)

Thankfully, a little while later, I had a good reason to write a rage fueled just barely dynamic replacement of WordPress that met our exact needs with data stored as files. Not as fast as static files, but page generation in < 10 ms (IIRC) is good enough most days. Sadly, I think that blog moved to something slow again, but I no longer support it.

13. stavros ◴[31 Oct 25 07:01 UTC] No.45769115{3}[source]▶
Serving static files? It wouldn't even register.