incubator-couchdb-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gabriel de Oliveira Barbosa <manobi.olive...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: couch attachments versus amazon S3
Date Thu, 12 Jan 2012 05:10:09 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message