61–70 of 88 posts
Did anyone else have some pretty terrible results from the speed tester? I was pretty optimistic seeing their sample screenshot - am I missing something? http://i.imgur.com/UwNBGf3.png
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So you have 50TB of images to send me and a 10mbit internet pipe. Is it faster to FTP me the file or mail it on a hard drive?
To you and @nxzero, I'm not debating whether it's better or worse, I'm trying to find out if I'm actually understanding it right. From some of the other comments, it appears that it is just a matter of them sending you a physical disk -- it makes sense now.
Source: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/transfer-acce...
> The bucket names must match the names of the website that you are hosting. For example, to host your example.com website on Amazon S3, you would create a bucket named example.com.
Source: http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/website-hosti...
...
Looks like they don't want you replacing CloudFront with Amazon S3 Transfer Acceleration - which is a royal pain for some of my use cases (internal facing websites that don't need a full CDN).
Do I understand this correctly that Cloudfront is still the better option for fronting static assets like JS and CSS?
Did anyone else have some pretty terrible results from the speed tester? I was pretty optimistic seeing their sample screenshot - am I missing something? http://i.imgur.com/UwNBGf3.png
If it makes you feel better, the accelerated ones are slower for me! http://i.imgur.com/n6DhyHj.png
Regardless of my results, I've gotta hand it to Amazon on a really kickass speed comparison page. That's a great user experience. It immediately tells me whether I should be using this or not from my particular corporate network without requiring me to waste a day or so trying it out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even with that, I don't get it. "Moving lots of data either requires a huge pipe, or a ton of storage disks." With that, they offer their Snowball device, which, if I'm understanding correctly, holds up to 50TB (now 80TB), which they physically ship to you, and then you ship back to them. How does this fix either of the constraints (disk space / connection pipe)?
So you have 50TB of images to send me and a 10mbit internet pipe. Is it faster to FTP me the file or mail it on a hard drive?
This assumes you get perfect utilisation of the connection (which never happens) so i would probably round up to 450 to 500 days on a 10Mb/s pipe
Does anybody have a sense of how fast uploading to S3 can get? I'm on a gigabit link here in Singapore, uploading to Singapore instance of S3 (via ARQ) - and I'm disappointed that I rarely see better than about 40 Mbits/second.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You cant? PUT/POST through Cloudfront supported since October 2013. https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2013/10/15/amazon... "You can use existing Amazon CloudFront distributions for upload requests by simply enabling support in the AWS management console. When end users upload content, CloudFront will send the upload request back to the origin web server (such as an Amazon S3 bucket, an Amazon EC2 instance, a…
I stand corrected, thanks for the info. Cloudfront doesn't appear to support multi-part uploads however, which I guess is the primary value-add of the newly announced service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm in Singapore, uploading to Oregon, 100mb, took minutes , I changed to upload via signed cloud front requests, takes 15s to upload 100mb now...
I presume you mean 100 MB (or just plain 100 MBytes) - so, 53 megabits/second. So a little better, but nowhere near 1 gigabit (which I presume you have, it's so cheap here - not that it seems to be useful for anything other than great speedtest results)
My point was just that I get better results using CloudFront than using S3 or Multi Upload S3.
Sharing what I can :)