81–88 of 88 posts
Do I understand this correctly that Cloudfront is still the better option for fronting static assets like JS and CSS?
You don't actually have a choice: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11531357
> The name of the bucket used for Transfer Acceleration must be DNS-compliant and must not contain periods ("."). 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/d…
The wildcard SSL certificate they use only matches the c.s3-xxxx.amazonaws.com part of the sub domain
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What stops you from uploading gzip'd data to S3?
It stays gzip'd once you've uploaded it.
Your complaint seems to be "S3 doesn't automatically gunzip gzip files that I upload", which sounds like the desired behaviour to me. i.e. if I ever upload gzipped content to S3, it is because I want it to be served compressed over HTTP, or because I am moving a compressed backup file to S3. In neither case would gunzipping be desirable, although I do appreciate that compressing during the transfer, and decompressing on the other end, could save some bytes during transfers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It stays gzip'd once you've uploaded it.
Well to be fair, that is not the same as "you can not upload gzip'd content". Your complaint seems to be "S3 doesn't automatically gunzip gzip files that I upload", which sounds like the desired behaviour to me. i.e. if I ever upload gzipped content to S3, it is because I want it to be served compressed over HTTP, or because I am moving a compressed backup file to S3. In neither case would gunzipping be desirable, al…
Yes, the other things I could have meant would have been odd, so I'm not sure why you spent time typing them out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well to be fair, that is not the same as "you can not upload gzip'd content". Your complaint seems to be "S3 doesn't automatically gunzip gzip files that I upload", which sounds like the desired behaviour to me. i.e. if I ever upload gzipped content to S3, it is because I want it to be served compressed over HTTP, or because I am moving a compressed backup file to S3. In neither case would gunzipping be desirable, al…
My complaint is that I can't upload a gzip'd file and have it decompressed on their end, yes. Yes, the other things I could have meant would have been odd, so I'm not sure why you spent time typing them out.
It seemed clear that you were either confused about what features were supported by S3, or not expressing your complaint correctly. The reason behind typing them out was trying to politely point this out, while describing some of the real-world use cases for using gzip'd files in S3 (partially to highlight why it would not make sense for S3 to gunzip files automatically).
I felt this would be a more useful comment than "you are wrong, you can upload gzip'd files to S3", or just downvoting your comment for being incorrect.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't actually have a choice: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11531357
That is not correct. You can host a website from an S3 bucket without using CloudFront. Although of course, downloads will come directly from the S3 bucket and not from a CF edge location.
You can't use S3 Transfer Acceleration with S3 Static Website Hosting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not correct. You can host a website from an S3 bucket without using CloudFront. Although of course, downloads will come directly from the S3 bucket and not from a CF edge location.
Huh, just what did you think I was saying? Of course you can put CloudFront in front of S3 website hosting!!! You can't use S3 Transfer Acceleration with S3 Static Website Hosting.