On: Things you wish you didn't need to know about S3

[nh2]

How about the fact that S3 is not suitable for web serving due to high latencies (in standard storage classes)?

Many people think you can just host the resources for your websites, such as images or fonts, straight on S3. But that can make for a shitty experience:

> applications can achieve consistent small object latencies (and first-byte-out latencies for larger objects) of roughly 100–200 milliseconds.

From: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/userguide/optimi...

[teitoklien → nh2]

Most folks use S3 as a source for AWS cloudfront for serving content

You can even use cloudfront signed cookies to give specific users cdn access to only specific content owned by them on S3. How cool is that.

[WatchDog → nh2]

Typically you would use cloudfront with S3 if you want to use it for serving web assets.

It will cache frequently accessed assets, and in addition to reducing latency may reduce cost quite a bit.

[lulznews → nh2]

Pretty much everyone knows this …

[weird-eye-issue → nh2]

This has been well known for over a decade

[mcqueenjordan → nh2]

s3 is not optimized to directly serve websites, but to durably store and retrieve ~unlimited data.

[metadat → nh2]

Put a memcached instance in front and you're good.