Menu
I have about 15 high res background images for my site, each weigh around 500 MB. Im wondering if there is an advantage to storing them on Amazon S3 instead of my own web server. It seems like the pages should load faster if local to my server, but not sure
264
The more efficient and cost-effective option is to use AWS's S3 service for storing the image files. Using S3 is a very low-cost option. Effectively, all you are paying for is transferring files into an S3 bucket and serving those images to your users.
S3 is an easy-to-use, scalable, and cheap storage service from Amazon. You can use S3 to store any amount of data for a wide range of use cases. Static website hosting, data archival, and software delivery are a few general scenarios where S3 would be a perfect tool.
You can create a dataset using images stored in an Amazon S3 bucket. With this option, you can use the folder structure in your Amazon S3 bucket to automatically label your images. You can store the images in the console bucket or another Amazon S3 bucket in your account.
Use Amazon S3 as a cloud file server with secure access and file sharing. It is a solution with web browser access, mapped drive access, file locking, version control, and sharing files online as web links.
My experience with S3 is that it may not be fast because there is a latency that is significant. But the main advantage is that is supposed to be constant and reliable, something that probably you cannot say about a private hosting.
If you decide to use S3, one important detail is choosing the zone (US-East, US-West, Europe, Asia) according to the location of your users. That may reduce the latency.
And another detail is the pricing ( http://aws.amazon.com/s3/#pricing ). With those prices you'll pay about $ 0,1 for each 2K requests of your 500 Kb backgrounds, which in my opinion is cheap.
178
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
