R2 vs Pages for Simple Static Site
For a simple static site should I use pages or r2?
I've used pages before when creating sites using dev tools like npm, react, git/github.
In this particular case the site is generated from a wysiwyg tool that doesn't need a github repo so I just upload the assets via the browser to either pages or r2.
I've not yet connected an r2 bucket to a domain, but seems pretty straightforward. Does anyone have any pro/con advice?
2 Replies
You should use Pages, it is specifically designed for this.
Pages uses KV under the hood which has two central stores, one in US/EU, and automatic caching. You get unlimited static asset requests, just need to have less then 20k files and no single file bigger then 25 MiB
R2 is useful for larger files or if you want to host media/images you aren't using on your website, you could use an R2 Custom Domain and a Cache Rule to force caching. R2 Buckets only exist in one location though, and you lose previews/rolling back to deployments, git integration, etc