Comments on: Scaling Servers with the Cloud: Amazon S3

By: Smashing Magazine Killed The Community (Or Maybe It Was Me)

Smashing Magazine Killed The Community (Or Maybe It Was Me) — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 08:12:35 +0000

[...] Scaling Servers with the Cloud: Amazon S3 [...]

By: Ian

Ian — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:09:58 +0000

Has anyone worked out an automated way to keep static file changes (or new files) synced with S3? e.g. you add some new images to your server and they’re on your bucket soon after without intervention?

By: Shawn B.

Shawn B. — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 22:10:33 +0000

I could be totally wrong about this, but from what I understand another big benefit of cloud computing is that people who are accessing your website from very far away, like if your server is based in Washington and the user is sitting in Florida, it can help with load times.

Is this correct or am I confusing this with a different technology?

By: Eli Buenaventura

Eli Buenaventura — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 02:04:07 +0000

Thanks for this article, I’m now checking if our http://www.kalokohan.com website will benefit from this. Are there any other alternatives like this service? Akamai is a good solution too, but it’s quite pricey. Thanks!

By: Scaling Servers with the Cloud: Amazon CloudFront | Build Internet!

Scaling Servers with the Cloud: Amazon CloudFront | Build Internet! — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 04:57:53 +0000

[...] This is the second of two articles focused on using Amazon’s cloud services to boost your server’s performance and capabilities. Read the first part. [...]

By: Zach Dunn

Zach Dunn — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:06:07 +0000

@Greg

CloudFront is an expansion (but not quite a replacement) to S3. Think of S3 like the main warehouse, and CloudFront as the delivery trucks.

We’ll discuss the benefits of CDN’s more in the followup article.

By: Lee

Lee — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:58:34 +0000

To be honest I haven’t worked out the bandwidth we use on our sites, but I wrote a blog post a while back about EC2 and in reality how expensive it is

http://www.blogfodder.co.uk/post/Wow-Amazon-EC2-Is-Expensive-For-Start-Ups.aspx

Amazon do a great job of marketing these ‘cloud’ services – But when you actually sit down and do the maths they tend to work out a lot more expensive than say a 1&1 server/hosting with no bandwidth limits.

By: Jannis Gerlinger

Jannis Gerlinger — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:20:54 +0000

yes, nice article.
I share it.

By: Jimbob

Jimbob — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:34:46 +0000

I would like to look into using the Amazon for hosting various assets eating up HTTP requests. Im just wondering would it be possible to utilise my own custom PHP CMS to upload the files across to the cloud in an automated way. Just don’t want this to be manually done as it would defeat the purpose if that makes sense. If it frees up the resources of my dedicated server for database and PHP I would be over the moon.

By: Greg

Greg — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:43:05 +0000

I was investigating this lately as well (not that my pitiful little site would benefit, but because I’m a curious type) and I also noticed Amazon’s “Cloudfront” service.

As far as I can tell, the “Cloudfront” is like S3 (probably shares the S3 API) but also distributes content to edge servers; in other words, an on-demand “pay for what you use” CDN. Which would be even more useful for large media files when you have international traffic.

Am I going crazy? Is Cloudfront not a better way to leverage S3 for web-hosting needs, rather than a straight-up S3 bucket?
.-= Greg´s last blog ..Coles First Halloween =-.