On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 1:52 AM, Rob Marscher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. >
We are using it for static photos and videos. The main benefit is that it is cheap and we don't have to worry about space limitations or bandwidth headaches. I wouldn't recommend it for css images, javascript, and static html for two reasons: 1) It requires 3-5 extra DNS queries, so first load will be slow. 2) There is no suitable way to gzip. Since we buy a lot of adwords clicks, first load performance is crucial. I have mirrored all of the css images and javascript onto S3, and I can flip the switch if needed, but for now we are only using it for photos and videos. -John C. _______________________________________________ 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
