2 ms·
AWS and IPFS are so different that you can't compare then. I'd say that the right comparison of IPFS is to BitTorrent.
by neiman 7y ago
AWS and IPFS are so different that you can't compare then. I'd say that the right comparison of IPFS is to BitTorrent.
- jononor 7y agoIf I am supposed to host my website on it, I want to know how much it would cost (for a given service level). Don't really care if the tech is more like butterflies or turtles...
- blotter_paper 7y agoIPFS nodes generally cache data that has been accessed recently, so if your website is the most accessed content on IPFS you can host it for free just by sharing it once and users will have relatively quick access to it because nodes directly connected to them will probably have a cached copy already. If requests are rare, expect to host it yourself or pay a pinning service, and expect higher latency as users will be requesting content hosted multiple hops away. You should care whether the tech is butterflies or turtles, because you can't compare butterflies and turtles -- or you can, but the comparison breaks down when you ask which will get to an undefined point x quicker. If x is in the air, butterflies; if x is in the water, turtles.
- icebraining 7y agoAWS S3 has bittorrent support...