3 ms·
I think a torrent would be better. There will probably be lots of interest in this, so S3 can get expensive.
by tejaswiy 12y ago
I think a torrent would be better. There will probably be lots of interest in this, so S3 can get expensive.
- IanCal 12y agoUseful tip, if you add "?torrent" to the end of the url for something stored in S3, you get a torrent. I think this only works for files < 5GB though.
- morisy 12y agoThat is awesome. Thank for the tip.
- mikeash 12y agoAny idea of the reason for the size limit? That's a pretty weird limit to put on a torrent feature.
- mentat 12y agoReducing the incentive to host uncompressed DVDs / BluRay?
- toomuchtodo 12y agoIts an S3 torrent endpoint architectural limitation.
- oh_sigh 12y agoS3 can serve its contents through bittorrent as well, so you only really need to serve up 1 copy of the file(realistically, it will end up being a bit more than that if we are dealing with good internet citizens)