couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Newson <rnew...@apache.org>
Subject Re: couch attachments versus amazon S3
Date Thu, 12 Jan 2012 08:56:28 GMT
"too large for couch attachments": how so?

On 12 January 2012 05:56, Mark Hahn <mark@hahnca.com> wrote:
> I just happened to run into documentation on an S3 feature that might
> address your concern ...
>
> "To host a static website on S3, It is possible to define a Amazon S3
> bucket as a *Website Endpoint*."
>
> http://trac.cyberduck.ch/wiki/help/en/howto/s3
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Gabriel de Oliveira Barbosa <
> manobi.oliveira@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm on same dilema, but one point that make diferences to me is couchdb
>> vhosts and rewrites, it can be very helpfull when you have complex routes
>> for your static files.
>>
>> S3 don't suport url wildcards also, but I read in some place that couchdb
>> can do this.
>>
>> On Thursday, January 12, 2012, Mark Hahn <mark@hahnca.com> wrote:
>> > I've been storing a lot of images as couch attachments.  I now have to
>> > support videos that are too large for couch attachments.  So I pretty
>> much
>> > have to consider using S3 since I'm on AWS anyway and S3 scales
>> > automatically compared to my OS file system.
>> >
>> > Since I have to use S3 for videos, why not use it for images?  Has anyone
>> > else compared these alternatives?
>> >
>> > These are the consequences to switching to S3 that I can think of ...
>> >
>> > 1) Smaller load on couchdb for replicating, compaction, disk usage etc
>> >
>> > 2) S3 would give less load on cpu and nginx for serving files to client
>> >
>> > 3) Performance for file access?  Would S3 be slower?
>> >
>> > 4) Option to use CDN in the future?
>> >
>> > 5) S3 has finer-grained access control than attachments.  I can't let the
>> > client directly access couch on my server because couch has no
>> read-access
>> > controls.
>> >
>> > 6) Do small files have a disadvantage in S3?  I see they charge for IO
>> > transfers, whatever that means.
>> >
>> > After typing this in I'm starting to think that if a file is needed
>> across
>> > servers, no matter how small, it should be in S3 instead of an
>> attachment.
>> >
>>

Mime
View raw message