How can we improve the upload speed of files from EC2 to S3, when the EC2 machine and S3 in different regions?
I have created a file which is of 1GB, and i need to upload the same to S3. Here the EC2 machine and S3 bucket were located in different regions(but Same Country)
Both were in US but the region is East and west
Anyone please assist on this
Unfortunately, there is not much you can do here. You are going to be limited to the available bandwidth between each datacenter.
You do have the option of moving your instance or bucket, to the other region. How much work this will be will depend on how much data you have in your bucket, or how you are currently using your instance.
A similar Question is this
There is a separate service Data pipeline, which provides reliable data transfer between S3 and EC2
Related
What is the network bandwidth between Amazon ec2 instances and Amazon S3? I am trying to figure out how long it would take me to copy data from Amazon S3 to Amazon EC2 (and vice versa)
This isn't published information, but ... it's fast.
On smaller instance classes, total Ethernet bandwidth available to the instance can easily be consumed by requests to S3, implying that the limitation isn't the connection to S3.
Provisioning a VPC endpoint for S3 access might also improve throughput to S3.
Bottom line, benchmark it. You will, of course, want to use a bucket that's provisioned in the same region as the instance, for both cost and performance reasons. Data transfer between EC2 and S3 is not billed within a region.
We have a site where users upload files, some of them quite large. We've got multiple EC2 instances and would like to load balance them. Currently, we store the files on an EBS volume for fast access. What's the best way to replicate the files so they can be available on more than one instance?
My thought is that some automatic replication process that uploads the files to S3, and then automatically downloads them to other EC2 instances would be ideal.
EBS snapshots won't work because they replicate the entire volume, and we need to be able to replicate the directories of individual customers on demand.
You could write a shell script that would spawn s3cmd to sync your local filesystem with a S3 bucket whenever a new file is uploaded (or deleted). It would look something like:
s3cmd sync ./ s3://your-bucket/
Depends on what OS you are running on your EC2 instances:
There isn't really any need to add S3 to the mix unless you want to store them there for some other reason (like backup).
If you are running *nix the classic choice might be to run rsync and just sync between instances.
On Windows you could still use rsync or else SyncToy from Microsoft is a simple free option. Otherwise there are probably hundreds of commercial applications in this space...
If you do want to sync to S3 then I would suggest one of the S3 client apps like CloudBerry or JungleDisk, which both have sync functionality...
If you are running Windows it's also worth considering DFS (Distributed File System) which provides replication and is part of Windows Server...
The best way is to use the Amazon Cloud Front service. All of the replication is managed as part of the AWS. Content is served from several different availability zones, but does not require you to have EBS volumes in those zones.
Amazon CloudFront delivers your static and streaming content using a global network of edge locations. Requests for your objects are automatically routed to the nearest edge location, so content is delivered with the best possible performance.
http://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/
Two ways:
Forget EBS, transfer the files to S3 and use S3 as your file-manager than EBS, add cloudfront and use the common-link everywhere.
Mount S3 bucket on any machines.
1. Amazon CloudFront is a web service for content delivery. It delivers your static and streaming content using a global network of edge locations.
http://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/
2. You can mount S3 bucket on your linux machine. See below:
s3fs -
http://code.google.com/p/s3fs/wiki/InstallationNotes
- this did work for me. It uses FUSE file-system + rsync to sync the files
in S3. It kepes a copy of all
filenames in the local system & make
it look like a FILE/FOLDER.
That way you can share the S3 bucket on different machines.
I am working on a Java MapReduce app that has to be able to provide an upload service for some pictures from the local machine of the user to an S3 bucket.
The thing is the app must run on an EC2 cluster, so I am not sure how I can refer to the local machine when copying the files. The method copyFromLocalFile(..) needs a path from the local machine which will be the EC2 cluster...
I'm not sure if I stated the problem correctly, can anyone understand what I mean?
Thanks
You might also investigate s3distcp: http://docs.amazonwebservices.com/ElasticMapReduce/latest/DeveloperGuide/UsingEMR_s3distcp.html
Apache DistCp is an open-source tool you can use to copy large amounts of data. DistCp uses MapReduce to copy in a distributed manner—sharing the copy, error handling, recovery, and reporting tasks across several servers. S3DistCp is an extension of DistCp that is optimized to work with Amazon Web Services, particularly Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3). Using S3DistCp, you can efficiently copy large amounts of data from Amazon S3 into HDFS where it can be processed by your Amazon Elastic MapReduce (Amazon EMR) job flow. You can also use S3DistCp to copy data between Amazon S3 buckets or from HDFS to Amazon S3.
You will need to get the files from the userMachine to at least 1 node before you will be able to use them through a MapReduce.
The FileSystem and FileUtil functions refer to paths either on the HDFS or the local disk of one of the nodes in the cluster.
It cannot reference the user's local system. (Maybe if you did some ssh setup... maybe?)
If I have my files hosted on Amazon S3, why would I need to use a cloud for North America? Wouldn't it just download from S3?
S3 has multiple regions. Currently there are four. Each S3 bucket is in a specific region. If you're using EC2 you will get the lowest prices (free bandwidth) and best performance (latency and bandwidth) if you use an S3 bucket in the same region as your EC2 instance.
This may be a silly question, but seeing as transfers between EC2 and S3 are free as long as within the same region, why isn't it possible to stream all transfers to and from S3 through EC2 and make the transfers completely free?
Specifically, I'm looking at Heroku, which is a Ruby on Rails hosting service run on EC2, where bandwidth is free. They already address uploads, and specifically note these are free to S3 if streamed through Heroku. However, I was wondering why the same trick wouldn't work in reverse, such that any files requested are streamed through the EC2?
If it is possible, would it be difficult to setup? I can't seem to find any discussion of this concept on Google.
The transfer is free, but it still costs money to store data on S3... Or am I missing something?