3 ms·
We got it working but there we're a TON of drawbacks that made it not worth the effort. Here are the top three. 1. The config was overly complex and not flexib
by rdpfeffer 14y ago
We got it working but there we're a TON of drawbacks that made it not worth the effort. Here are the top three.
1. The config was overly complex and not flexible enough for our needs.
2. It added extra, and unnecessary deploy steps which slowed down our deployments.
3. Configuring GZIP on S3 and Cloudfront is prohibitively complex.
CloudFlare on the other hand, solves many of these problems for us.
- jaytaylor 14y agoIn the article you referenced CloudFront, but now you're saying CloudFlare.. so which is it?
- rdpfeffer 14y agoThe article has been modified to clarify which service we are using as a reverse proxy and why.
- ashray 14y agoHang on! So your article says "CDN to cache them (which CloudFront supports)" but you're actually using CloudFLARE ? :O We're all so confused by this! Haha :D
- cdoxsey 14y agoBoth CloudFlare and CloudFront can do this. http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2010/11/amazon-cloudfront-support-for-custom-origins.html http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2010/11/amazon-cloudfront-support...
- ashray 14y agoActually, on looking deeper it appears that cloudfront does NOT support dynamic gzipping. So unfortunately, cloudflare would be your only option. Also, google's pagespeed service (in beta) is also an option. Also free, so that's good :D EDIT: Okay, wrong again. Appears that cloudfront will serve dynamically gzipped content if your origin server responds with gzipped content to the Accept-Encoding header. So origin server = S3 is not a good idea, but origin through your own web server should work fine.