What is the best way for storing images and Microsoft Office documents:
Google Drive
Google Storage
You may want to consider checking this page to help you choose which storage option suits you best and also learn more.
To differentiate the two:
Google Drive
A collaborative space for storing, sharing, and editing files, including Google Docs and is good for the following:
End-user interaction with docs and files
Collaborative creation and editing
Syncing files between cloud and local devices
Google Cloud Storage
A scalable, fully-managed, highly reliable, and cost-efficient object / blob store and good for these:
Images, pictures, and videos
Objects and blobs
Unstructured data
In addition to that, see Google Cloud Platform - FAQ for more insights.
Different approaches can be taken into consideration, google docs are widely used for online working with office documents etc, it provides probably same layout in comparison to Microsoft office, the advantage is that you can share the document with other people as well, plus you can edit it online at any time.
Google Drive (useful way to store your files)
Every Google Account starts with 15 GB of free storage that's shared across Google Drive, Gmail, and Google Photos. When you upgrade to Google One, your total storage increases to 100 GB or more depending on what plan you choose.
Mediafire (another useful way to store your files)
In mediafire on the basic package it allows you 10 GB of cloud space for free, the files you store in the MediaFire can be encrypted by password encryption. It allows more other features as well. A suggestion to explore.
Related
I was wondering what is the main difference between Amazon CloudSearch and Kendra? Why there are 2 different tools of the same company products and compete each other? Both looks like same, I am not sure what are the differences in features. How it is being differentiated one among the other.
Amazon CloudSearch: Set up, manage, and scale a search solution for your website or application. Amazon CloudSearch enables you to search large collections of data such as web pages, document files, forum posts, or product information. With a few clicks in the AWS Management Console, you can create a search domain, upload the data you want to make searchable to Amazon CloudSearch, and the search service automatically provisions the required technology resources and deploys a highly tuned search index;
Amazon Kendra: Enterprise search service powered by machine learning. It is a highly accurate and easy to use enterprise search service that’s powered by machine learning. It delivers powerful natural language search capabilities to your websites and applications so your end users can more easily find the information they need within the vast amount of content spread across your company.
The key difference between the two services is that AWS Cloud Search is based on Solr, a keyword engine, while Amazon Kendra is an ML-powered search engine designed to provide more accurate search results over unstructured data such as Word documents, PDFs, HTML, PPTs, and FAQs. Kendra was designed from the ground up to natively handle natural language queries and return specific answers, instead of just lists of documents like keyword engines do.
Another key difference is that in CloudSearch, to upload data to your domain, it must be formatted as a valid JSON or XML batch. Kendra, on the other hand, provides out of the box connectors that allow customers to automatically index content from popular repositories like Sharepoint Online, S3, Salesforce, Servicenow, etc., directly into the Kendra index. So, depending on your use case, Kendra may be a better choice, especially if you’re considering the service for enterprise search applications, or even web site search where deeper language understanding is important. Hope this helps, happy to address follow-up questions. You can also visit our Kendra FAQ page for more specific answers around the service: https://aws.amazon.com/kendra/faqs/
I'm using AWS S3 as my CDN to store files. Often these are directly linked from places all over the world. I'd like to track the file downloads in the S3 bucket using Google Analytics. It appears Google Analytics Measurement Protocol may be able to do this. But since I'm new to both the AWS environment and GAMP, I was hoping I'm not the first to ever do this. Anyone know of a way this can be accomplished?
I doubt this is possible without you doing extra work on top.
You could create a proxy site that, when hit, records an event to Google Analytics and then redirects to the download page/bucket.
You could also maybe have some script/job/etc scrape events from the AWS dashboards and write them to Google Analytics, although this would probably be less than real-time.
You can turn on logging for the buckets you care about, then download the little logfile fragments that Amazon delivers and feed them into an off-the-shelf analytics package such as Webalizer. If you're willing to spend the time and effort to build a pipeline and massage the data so that it fits.
I've written about how to do that here:
https://www.expatsoftware.com/articles/2007/11/roll-your-own-web-stats-for-amazon-s3.html
If you just want the reports today, there are a handful of 3rd party services built around doing this for you, so if you have ~$10/month to spend that's probably the best solution.
S3stat (https://www.s3stat.com/) is my suggestion. But then it should be since it's also my product.
I have a couple of zipped shapefiles with around 100-150 features. I am trying to add them on ArcGIS Online (which accepts under 1000 features per shapefile) but it is unable to do so, indicating to me that the zipped shapefile is too big.
I am not sure why since the features are way under 1000
You may be encountering a problem with file size and/or other data on your account, rather than the record limit.
How much storage space do I get?
Subscriptions provide flexible storage capacity options for your organization.
If you have an organizational account, check with your
administrator for information about your storage limit. If you are an
administrator, you can view detailed reports about your organization's
storage of tiles, features, and files. A public account comes with 2
GB of total storage space.
Also note:
Organizational and public accounts can upload items through My Content that are up to 1 GB in size. This is a browser limit; larger file sizes may be supported when uploading through desktop applications such as ArcGIS for Desktop.
When using Azure Web Sites (WAWS) general opinion seems to be that uploaded content such as photo's or files should be stored in Azure Storage Blobs and not in the WAWS File System.
Clearly using Azure Storage is a great idea if you have a lot of data and need scale and redundancy however for small or simple sites it seems to add another layer of complexity and also means you can't easily use things like ImageResizer without purchasing the Azure compatible licence etc.
So given that products like WordPress from the Azure Gallery uses "/site/wwwroot/wp-content/uploads/" to store all uploaded files on WAWS is there anything wrong with using the WAWS file system for storage or are there other considerations to take into account when using Azure WAWS?
The major drawback to using the WAWS storage is that your data is now intermingled with the application. By saving all of your plugins/images/blobs externally in a database or blob storage, you retain the flexibility to redeploy your application to a new region/datacenter by just pushing your code to the new website and changing connection strings.
If your plugins/images are stored on disk in WAWS, then you need to make sure that you are backing it up appropriately. If anything happens, you need to restore the site along with all of the data that had been uploaded.
Azure Web Sites is using Azure storage as a file storage so essentially the level of complexity you're talking about is abstracted.
Another great benefit that comes with this approach is if you scale your web site to multiple instances all of them will work with exact same file content.
Of course if you want to use pure Azure Storage features like snapshots or sharing specific content to specific users this is not available as is. But for the web site purposes is quite good.
Hope that helps
I'm wondering if it's possible to transfer files from one cloud storage to another "on the fly"? Specifically I want to build an app that will transfer my photos from Skydrive to Box.net without saving files temporarily to my databases, but saving files directly to Box.net storage?
Thanks,
Lojza
I'm not aware of any cloud provider that provides an API for transferring data to a competing cloud provider, but I'm not familiar with skydrive or box.net. Cloud providers have no incentive to help you move your data to the competition. You will almost certainly have to read the data to your local machine then write it to Box.net
You can do it with https://app.mover.io/ and http://otixo.com/
These are just for this purpose..