Title says it all.
I am currently running a website where members are able to stream video directly from my bucket on S3. However, the player also provides a download option. How do I remove this option?
Thanks in advance.
Vincent
From the S3 console, select your videos (you will have to do it one by one) and modify the permissions:
If you are uploading your videos programmatically you can do this then or by updating the object properties.
You can modify your permissions to a bucket level if you want this for every object in your bucket by selecting Properties (in the right corner of the console once you are in your bucket) and then permissions. Or you can do it programmatically.
Here you can find more information about ACL fro S3.
Actually you can't.
One option you can try is to configure RTMP Streaming Distribution on your bucket and stream video using RTMP player.
In this case you should disable public access to your files and give access only to streaming distribution identity.
Solutions that are able to download RTMP streams are not so common (it was a proprietary protocol for a long time)
Related
i am very new to tokbox and interested to know whether i can download and store the archived videos/data from tokbox into my own server through rest api without using microsoft azure or amazon s3.
Thanks in advance..
You have two options here. You can provide your own S3/azure bucket, or you can use the default OpenTok bucket, where you will have your archives available for downloading for 72 hours. If you don't want to use your own bucket, just let OpenTok store it, and, when you have finished the archiving session, use the API to get the s3 url to download it wherever you want.
If you want the archive to be created in your own server, the answer is simple. You cannot.
I hope this helps.
I'm using AjaXplorer to give access to my clients to a shared directory stored in Amazon S3. I installed the SD, configured the plugin (http://ajaxplorer.info/plugins/access/s3/) and could upload and download files but the upload size is limited to my host PHP limit which is 64MB.
Is there a way I can upload directly to S3 without going over my host to improve speed and have S3 limit, no PHP's?
Thanks
I think that is not possible, because the server will first climb to the PHP file and then make transfer to bucket.
Maybe
The only way around this is to use some JQuery or JS that can bypass your server/PHP entirely and stream directly into S3. This involves enabling CORS and creating a signed policy on the fly to allow your uploads, but it can be done!
I ran into just this issue with some inordinately large media files for our website users that I no longer wanted to host on the web servers themselves.
The best place to start, IMHO is here:
https://github.com/blueimp/jQuery-File-Upload
A demo is here:
https://blueimp.github.io/jQuery-File-Upload/
This was written to upload+write files to a variety of locations, including S3. The only tricky bits are getting your MIME type correct for each particular upload, and getting your bucket policy the way you need it.
I am using red5 for streaming videos in my project and I am able to play the videos from the local system which are saved in default folder "streams".
Now i want to customize the path and want to get the videos from S3. How do i configure red5 to work with S3. Is this a good practice?
I've got code using the IStreamFilenameGenerator works with S3; I'll warn you now that it may not work with the latest jets3 library, but you'll get the point of how it works by looking through the source. One problem / issue that you must understand when using S3 is that you cannot "record" to the bucket on-the-fly; your flv files can only be transferred to S3 once the file is finalized; there is an example upload call in the Application.class. Whereas "play" from S3 will work as expected.
I added the S3 code to the red5-examples repo: https://github.com/Red5/red5-examples
Search for:
https://stackoverflow.com/search?q=IStreamFilenameGenerator
Or https://www.google.com.au/search?q=IStreamFilenameGenerator+example&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:de:official&client=firefox-a
and you will find some examples howto modify the path(s).
You could alternatively also of course simply mount some drive into the streams folder or I guess a symbolic link would even work. But it might be not that flexible as if you can do it with IStreamFilenameGenerator and generate really some string completely like you want it.
Sebastian
I want to upload pictures to the AWS s3 through the iPhone. Every user should be able to upload pictures but they must remain private for each one of them.
My question is very simple. Since I have no real experience with servers I was wondering which of the following two approaches is better.
1) Use some kind of token vending machine system to grant the user access to the AWS s3 database to upload directly.
2) Send the picture to the EC2 Servlet and have the virtual server place it on the S3 storage.
Edit: I would also need to retrieve, should i do it directly or through the servlet?
Thanks in advance.
Hey personally I don't think it's a good idea to use token vending machine to directly upload the data via the iPhone, because it's much harder to control the access privileges, etc. If you have a chance use ec2 and servlet, but that will add costs to your solution.
Also when dealing with S3 you need to take in consideration that some files are not available right after you save them. Look at this answer from S3 FAQ.
For retrieving data directly from S3 you will need to deal with the privileges issue again. Check the access model for S3, but again it's probably easier to manage the access for non public files via the servlet. The good news is that there is no data transfer charge for data transferred between EC2 and S3 within the same region.
Another important point to consider the latter solution
High performance in handling load and network speeds within amazon ecosystem. With direct uploads the client would have to handle complex asynchronous operations of multipart uploads etc instead of focusing on the presentation and rendering of the image.
The servlet hosted on EC2 would be way more powerful than what you can do on your phone.
Reduced Redundancy Storage (RRS) is a new service from Amazon that is a bit cheaper than S3 because there is less redundancy.
However, I can not find any information on how to specify that my data should use RRS rather than standard S3. In fact, there doesn't seem to be any website interface for an S3 services. If I log into AWS, there are only options for EC2, Elastic MapReduce, CloudFront and RDS, none of which I use.
I know this question is old but it's worth mentioning that Amazon's interface for S3 now has an option to change your files (recursively) to RRS. Select a folder and right click on it, under properties change the storage to RRS.
You can use S3 Browser to switch to Reduced Redundancy Storage. It allows you to view/edit storage class for a single file or for multiple files. Moreover, you can configure default storage class for the bucket, so S3 Browser will automatically apply predefined storage class for all new files you are uploading through S3 Browser.
If you are using S3 Browser to work with RRS, the following article may be helpful:
Working with Amazon S3 Reduced Redundancy Storage (RRS)
Note, Storage Class preferences are stored in a local settings file.Other s3 applications are using their own way to store bucket defaults and currently there is not single standard on this.
All objects in Amazon S3 have a
storage class setting. The default
setting is STANDARD. You can use an
optional header on a PUT request to
specify the setting
REDUCED_REDUNDANCY.
From: http://aws.amazon.com/s3/faqs/#How_do_I_specify_that_I_want_to_store_my_data_using_RRS
If you are looking for a way to convert existing data in amazon s3, you can use a fairly recent version of boto and a script I wrote. Details explained on my blog:
http://www.bryceboe.com/2010/07/02/amazon-s3-convert-objects-to-reduced-redundancy-storage/
If you're on a mac, the free cyberduck ftp program will do it. Log into S3, right-click on the bucket (or folder, or file) and choose 'info' and change the storage class from 'unknown' or 'regular s3 storage' to 'reduced redundancy storage'. Took it about 2 hours to change 30,000 files for me...
If you use boto, you can do this:
key.change_storage_class('REDUCED_REDUNDANCY')