For my IPFS server, I use pinata.cloud and upload my content there. But it is slow and I have heard people say that Cloudflare IPFS are faster. But I couldn't find anything on how to upload to Cloudflare IPFS server instead of Pinata.
I might have misunderstood the whole thing. Does it really matter where do I upload my content as long as I upload it to IPFS? Like, is there any difference if I use IPFS desktop or use Pinata to upload my content to IPFS? How is Cloudflare faster then? or is it?
Related
We are trying to improve our site performance. As part of that, we are planning to do 2 things:
all static images are served via S3. This way, the images are served cookie-less.
we have a bunch of other static content - javascript, CSS, images such as our logo, etc. We are wondering what the best way is to serve these.
Currently, they are simply stored in the assets folder. This is nice & easy, and since Rails attaches a fingerprint to cache bust, all our current needs are met. However, going forward, we realize that this is not the right way to serve up these images (our logo, etc).
So what's the best way to serve this sort of content?
Thanks!
Ringo
If you are already using S3, then I would put all of these files on S3 too. Then use AWS CloudFront (Content Delivery Network) so that they get served up fast. The cost of CloudFront is really negligible.
You can use a gem like https://github.com/rumblelabs/asset_sync to make it easier to manage.
I want to upload big files to server. What is the best way to this:
1) using node.js library, such as formidable
2) using nginx upload module
or may be other more faster and better solution ?
If you just want to upload big files nginx would be the better solution.
However if you want to stream files, download as you upload, then node.js would be the right tool.
I'm wondering how I can find out where the culprit is, as to what is NOT being transmitted over SSL on my website. It's blowing my mind, because I use relative URLs or explicitly choose HTTPS:// for all links, images, etc...
Any ideas/tools to find out what the issue is?
Thanks.
If you mean that some resources are transferred over HTTP without encryption, you can check for this in Chrome's Developer tools in the tab Resources - that should tell you which parts come from where - look for those with address starting with http:// .
Alternately, use Fiddler: by default, it won't decrypt HTTPS connections, so you'll be seeing CONNECT requests for HTTPS, and GET/POST for HTTP - those are your culprits.
For those, like myself, who run into this issue i suggest a few tips while designing your website.
Always use relative paths when ever possible "images/someimage.png" instead of using domain paths like http://someDomainName/images/someimage.png so on. Any one of these and it will cause the browser to throw that warning at you.
When linking to external content, Google/other Ads, javascript sources(such as jquery, so on), or any other media... make sure you use a https:// link if they have one available. Myself, i had one tiny image for a link to an external site but they did not offer a https link to the image, so i simply downloaded it and put it in my images folder. Problem solved.
The Chrome resources list is a very helpful tool, not sure if Firefox has something similar in its tool box. Another method, if you have shell/command line access, is to use grep to search the files for "http:". This, most often, will show anything that is linking to non secure content.
I am starting to use Jungle Disk to upload files to an Amazon S3 bucket which corresponds to a Cloudfront distribution. i.e. I can access it via an http:// URL and I am using Amazon as a CDN.
The problem I am facing is that Jungle Disk doesn't set 'read' permissions on the files so when I go to the corresponding URL in a browser I get an Amazon 'AccessDenied' error. If I use a tool like BucketExplorer to set the ACL then that URL now returns a 200.
I really really like the simplicity of dragging files to a network drive. JungleDisk is the best program I've found to do this reliably without tripping over itself and getting confused. However it doesn't seem to have an option to make the files read-able.
I really don't want to have to go to a different tool (especially if i have to buy it) to just change the permissions - and this seems really slow anyway because they generally seem to traverse the whole directory structure.
JungleDisk provides some kind of 'web access' - but this is a paid feature and I'm not sure if it will work or not.
S3 doesn't appear to propagate permissions down which is a real pain.
I'm considering writing a manual tool to traverse my tree and set everything to 'read' but I'd rather not do this if this is a problem someone else has already solved.
Disclaimer: I am the developer of this tool, but I think it may answer your question.
If you are on Windows you can use CloudBerry Explorer Amazon S3 client. It supports most of the Amazon S3 and CloudFront features and It is freeware.
I use the Transmit Mac app to modify permissions on files I've already uploaded with JungleDisk. If you're looking for a more cross-platform solution, the S3Fox browser plugin for Firefox claims to be able to modify permissions on S3 files as well.
If you need a web based tool, you can use S3fm, free online Amazon S3 file manager.
It's a pure Ajax app that runs in your browser and doesn't require sharing your credentials with a 3rd party web site.
If you need a reliable cross-platform tool to handle permissions, you can have a look at CrossFTP Pro. It supports most of the Amazon S3 and CloudFront features as well.
We have a bunch of data on S3 (images) but just started reading about Mosso Files (rackspace). Sometime this month they are going to add CDN capabilities so any file you upload is part of the limelight CDN.
Anyone using this service, it's not as well documented or publicized at S3.
Yes, it's not well documented or publicized as S3. But dude it has CDN support which S3 is lack off (unless you willing to pay extra of course). Bad thing is you can't FTP into Mosso CloudFile, you will either have to upload it through web-based control panel or API. Yet, it's still cheap and worth especially with CDN.
I am using the service and it's pretty good and cost effective compare to S3.
We use it for all our client sites, from images to podcasts, and it's hand down, the best way to distribute content and make it highly available - especially at this price!
cheers