[collsni]

Seems like this site could used a caching CDN lol

[K0nserv]

The author seems to be serving it from their home network at 7Mbps upstream, which probably isn't quite up to handling HN front page levels of traffic

[arcza]

Correct, my crappy VDSL2 connection is not cut out for this level of traffic. I am grateful for the traffic from HN nonetheless :)

[farmdve]

I didn't know people still did that.

[avhception]

I would love to, but I'd very much prefer a static IP for that (instead of reverse proxy / wireguard shenanigans) but getting one is prohibitively expensive where I live. Basically, I'd need to purchase the big business package from my ISP.

[superkuh]

Lots do. I have since 1998. It's only become easier and better with time. Join us.

[Dylan16807]

Home hosting is neat but I'm not going to use the phrase "easier and better" unless I'm talking to someone with a much faster upload than single digit Mbps.

[superkuh]

Single digit mbps is fine for 99.9% of the time. The slashdot effect would take down shared hosting just as easily.

[Dylan16807]

With image-rich content, 5mbps will be visibly sluggish with only one visitor and even a few people you know poking it at the same time well have a bad experience.

Judging by https://unixism.net/2020/05/what-kind-of-traffic-does-hacker... and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30481230, surviving a couple loads per second up to 25 will get you through many slashdottings, and with a solid symmetrical home connection you have a very good chance.

If you have video, you're not going to survive a slashdotting, but 5Mbps will let you have about one viewer with a smooth experience, while 20-30 viewers could watch the same content on 100Mbps. Or maybe you want to deliver 4k and it's zero versus several peak viewers.

[mnw21cam]

I still do that.