3 ms·
Do I understand this correctly that Cloudfront is still the better option for fronting static assets like JS and CSS?
by dantiberian 11y ago
Do I understand this correctly that Cloudfront is still the better option for fronting static assets like JS and CSS?
- EwanToo 11y agoYes, 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)
- Benjamin_Dobell 11y agoYou don't actually have a choice: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11531357 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11531357
- mryan 11y agoThat 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.
- Benjamin_Dobell 11y agoHuh, 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.
- mryan 11y agoMy apologies, I misread your comment.
- kalleboo 11y agoThat's only if you want a fancy CNAME. If you're just hosting static assets, you might not care what the domain name is