[Luuseens]

Yes, I host my blog that way:

- Generate static files using Pelican

- Dump the files to S3

- Set up Route53 to point a domain at the bucket

- Set up CloudFront (Amazon's CDN) to sit in front of the S3 bucket, since I found pure S3 to be too slow

Works incredibly well.

[Pxtl]

Why use Amazon for static pages? My github page works just fine.

[projektir]

I believe Amazon is more robust if your website gets hit by a lot of traffic.

[Jack000]

keep in mind S3 bandwidth is roughly 20~30x more expensive than a VPS.

I put my photo/video blog on S3 reasoning that it'll handle spikes better. At one point it reached the front page of HN and cost me $450. Afterward I looked at the logs and found that my single $20 linode would have handled it fine...

[mabbo]

Definitely depends on your requirements. AWS can indeed charge a bit for bandwidth.

But if you're talking about small static websites, AWS gives you an easy interface, Cloudfront, Route53, etc. It's a very easy way to do some very complex things.

You might also look into billing alarms. I've got some simple background jobs that I run on lambda, pulling some files to S3 every hour. It costs me a buck or two a month. But if it ever looks like it might charge me $20, it will alarm and email me.

[stephenr]

I assume you mean data transfer rather than bandwidth, but an often overlooked factor nonetheless.

[nhatbui]

How much does all this cost you per month?

[aaronbrethorst]

Probably about 10 cents.

[RonInDune]

For some reason that feels like cheating on a test but it's brilliant nevertheless. I think I'll try it with the 15 local corner shop sites that I'm hosting out of the goodness of my heart. Thanks!