On Jun 6, 2008, at 2:20 PM, John Campbell wrote:
I do use S3 to serve static content for a production site, and I have been extremely pleased with the quality of the service.
How much static content? Large files only... or have you tried serving, say, all the images, static html, css, javascript, etc? I seem to remember hearing reports early on that it wasn't necessarily the best performance for serving your 2k background png. It obviously works well for stuff like media, photo archives, etc. But I'm wondering if you could use it to really offset the number of requests and load from your web server. Serving static content from apache running php is a waste of resources... but I'm wondering if offloading it to S3 would be better (or at least cheaper and not too much slower/ reliable) than maintaining your own dedicated server for static content.
Thanks, Rob _______________________________________________ New York PHP Community Talk Mailing List http://lists.nyphp.org/mailman/listinfo/talk NYPHPCon 2006 Presentations Online http://www.nyphpcon.com Show Your Participation in New York PHP http://www.nyphp.org/show_participation.php
