3 ms·

No more downtime - Amazon S3 based external JavaScript hosting

13 points by paraschopra 17y ago

pierrefar 17y ago
But S3 does go down, even if they have SLAs. A Google search is your friend: http://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+s3+downtime http://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+s3+downtime I don't think anyone can guarantee downtime, but you sure can minimize it.
- paraschopra 17y ago
  Yes, fully agree with you. But Amazon will have thousands of engineers 24x7 for fixing up if things go really bad. Amazon S3 is a way to ensure someone will be working to get the site up again if servers go down 2 am in the morning and somehow SMS alerts don't reach my phone.
- est 17y ago
  even worse: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=typhoon+fiber+internet http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=typhoon+fiber+int...
pvg 17y ago
You are still better off simply making a copy of the JS you are including and not having to put that 'huge responsibility' on someone else. It's the code you've tested against, after all. And if you feel S3 provides better reliability, you can put it there yourself. S3 fallback isn't going to do anything about 'I'm letting arbitrary 3rd party code run on my page'.
- paraschopra 17y ago
  That will not work for my specific case because even if my users include static JS file, they cannot include static JS file which will stall their browser in case the server falls.
tybris 17y ago
S3 is meant as a storage system and very reliable in storing bits, but not serving them. CloudFront is meant as a CDN and very reliable in serving bits.
- paraschopra 17y ago
  Doesn't CloudFront builds over S3? I was reading about CloudFront and what I understand is that it is basically a distribution mechanism for S3.
  - MicahWedemeyer 17y ago
    Yes, CF is a CDN that sits on top of S3. It's usually very easy to turn on. Spend the hour to get it all running and you'll be glad you did.
    - paraschopra 17y ago
      Yes, was just reading the comparision here http://www.bucketexplorer.com/documentation/cloudfront--amazon-s3-vs-amazon-cloudfront.html http://www.bucketexplorer.com/documentation/cloudfront--amaz... Sadly, it says changes on Cloud Front take 24 hours to refresh plus it doesn't support HTTPS. While the latter is still okay but the first condition defeats the purpose of the whole setup.
- shpxnvz 17y ago
  CloudFront is meant as a CDN and very reliable in serving bits. Unfortunately, in my experience, its not. We tried CloudFront in production and occasionally ran into horrible latencies - 20 to 30 seconds in the worst cases. We ended up switching back to S3 and see much more consistent performance. Maybe they've fixed those problems since, though.
olegk 17y ago
If your servers go down, how will JS files on S3 will help you?

13 points by paraschopra 17y ago

But S3 does go down, even if they have SLAs. A Google search is your friend: http://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+s3+downtime http://www.google.com/search?q=amazon+s3+downtime I don't think anyone can guarantee downtime, but you sure can minimize it.

paraschopra 17y ago
Yes, fully agree with you. But Amazon will have thousands of engineers 24x7 for fixing up if things go really bad. Amazon S3 is a way to ensure someone will be working to get the site up again if servers go down 2 am in the morning and somehow SMS alerts don't reach my phone.
est 17y ago
even worse: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=typhoon+fiber+internet http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=typhoon+fiber+int...

pvg 17y ago

You are still better off simply making a copy of the JS you are including and not having to put that 'huge responsibility' on someone else. It's the code you've tested against, after all. And if you feel S3 provides better reliability, you can put it there yourself. S3 fallback isn't going to do anything about 'I'm letting arbitrary 3rd party code run on my page'.

paraschopra 17y ago
That will not work for my specific case because even if my users include static JS file, they cannot include static JS file which will stall their browser in case the server falls.

tybris 17y ago

S3 is meant as a storage system and very reliable in storing bits, but not serving them. CloudFront is meant as a CDN and very reliable in serving bits.

paraschopra 17y ago
Doesn't CloudFront builds over S3? I was reading about CloudFront and what I understand is that it is basically a distribution mechanism for S3.
- MicahWedemeyer 17y ago
  Yes, CF is a CDN that sits on top of S3. It's usually very easy to turn on. Spend the hour to get it all running and you'll be glad you did.
  - paraschopra 17y ago
    Yes, was just reading the comparision here http://www.bucketexplorer.com/documentation/cloudfront--amazon-s3-vs-amazon-cloudfront.html http://www.bucketexplorer.com/documentation/cloudfront--amaz... Sadly, it says changes on Cloud Front take 24 hours to refresh plus it doesn't support HTTPS. While the latter is still okay but the first condition defeats the purpose of the whole setup.
shpxnvz 17y ago
CloudFront is meant as a CDN and very reliable in serving bits. Unfortunately, in my experience, its not. We tried CloudFront in production and occasionally ran into horrible latencies - 20 to 30 seconds in the worst cases. We ended up switching back to S3 and see much more consistent performance. Maybe they've fixed those problems since, though.

olegk 17y ago

If your servers go down, how will JS files on S3 will help you?