Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Do I understand this correctly that Cloudfront is still the better option for fronting static assets like JS and CSS?


Yes, cloudfront gives you far better control over things like headers, routing for different paths, error pages, etc, than vanilla s3 http access does, and is almost certainly lower latency compared to s3 (assuming your files aren't GB-sized)


You don't actually have a choice:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11531357


That is not correct. You can host a website from an S3 bucket without using CloudFront. Although of course, downloads will come directly from the S3 bucket and not from a CF edge location.


Huh, just what did you think I was saying? Of course you can put CloudFront in front of S3 website hosting!!!

You can't use S3 Transfer Acceleration with S3 Static Website Hosting.


My apologies, I misread your comment.


That's only if you want a fancy CNAME. If you're just hosting static assets, you might not care what the domain name is




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: