4 ms·
For what it's worth, you can point an arbitrary CNAME at an S3 bucket -- you don't need to use CloudFront for this. See http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/Amazon
by tomstuart 16y ago
For what it's worth, you can point an arbitrary CNAME at an S3 bucket -- you don't need to use CloudFront for this. See http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/VirtualHosting.html http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/Virtua... for details.
However, S3 doesn't have default root object support, so you do need CloudFront if you want http://mydomain.com/ http://mydomain.com/ (vs http://mydomain.com/index.html http://mydomain.com/index.html) to return an object instead of an error.
- jasonkester 16y agoYou can do that, but it's a pretty bad idea. Cloudfront will server your content anywhere in the world with a latency of 43ms. S3 latencies range between 200 and 800ms, which is not particularly suitable for delivering web content. For the privilege of this faster delivery, it will take you 30 seconds in your AWS tool of choice, and will roughly double your monthly bill (thus potentially pushing you above the $1/month barrier.) I'm sure there are levels of laziness and thriftiness for which serving straight from s3 seems attractive, but off the top of my head I can't think of any.
- MicahWedemeyer 16y agoIn the past, S3 was required for SSL, but I hear they've fixed that now. CloudFront is pretty sweet...