3 ms·
How about the fact that S3 is not suitable for web serving due to high latencies (in standard storage classes)? Many people think you can just host the resour
by nh2 2y ago
How about the fact that S3 is not suitable for web serving due to high latencies (in standard storage classes)?
Many people think you can just host the resources for your websites, such as images or fonts, straight on S3. But that can make for a shitty experience:
> applications can achieve consistent small object latencies (and first-byte-out latencies for larger objects) of roughly 100–200 milliseconds.
From: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/optimizing-performance.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/optimi...
- metadat 2y agoPut a memcached instance in front and you're good.
- lulznews 2y agoPretty much everyone knows this …
- teitoklien 2y agoMost folks use S3 as a source for AWS cloudfront for serving content You can even use cloudfront signed cookies to give specific users cdn access to only specific content owned by them on S3. How cool is that.
- WatchDog 2y agoTypically you would use cloudfront with S3 if you want to use it for serving web assets. It will cache frequently accessed assets, and in addition to reducing latency may reduce cost quite a bit.
- mcqueenjordan 2y agos3 is not optimized to directly serve websites, but to durably store and retrieve ~unlimited data.
- weird-eye-issue 2y agoThis has been well known for over a decade