We currently serve up downloadable content (mp3, pdf, mp4, zip files, etc) in a single S3 bucket called media.domainname.com.
We have a separate bucket that stores all the various video encodings for our iOS app: app.domainname.com.
We're investigating moving all of our images to S3 as well in order to ease the server load and prep us for moving to a load balanced server setup.
That said, is it better/more efficient to move our images to a separate bucket i.e., images.domainname.com? Or is it a better practice to create an images subfolder in the media bucket, like media.domainname.com/images?
What are the pros/cons of either method?
The primary benefits of using separate buckets are that you can assign separate policies to each:
Reduced redundancy to save on costs.
Versioning of changed contents.
Automatic archival to Glacier
Separate permissions
The only downside that I can think of is that it means you'd have to manage all these things separately across multiple buckets.
Related
Which DB is better for storing images in a photo-sharing application?
We don't recommend storing images directly in Cassandra. Most companies (they're household names you'd know very well and likely using their services) store images/videos/media on an object store like AWS S3 and Google Cloud Store.
Only the metadata of the media are stored in Cassandra for very fast retrieval -- S3 URL/URI, user info, media info, etc.
The advantage of using Cassandra is that it can be deployed to a hybrid combination of public clouds so you're not tied to one vendor. Being able to distribute your Cassandra nodes across clouds means that you can get as close as possible to your users. Cheers!
AWS S3 is an object storage service that works very well for unstructured data. It offers infinite store where the size of an object is restricted to 5TB. S3 is suitable for storing large objects.
DynamoDB is a NoSQL, low latency database which is suitable for semi-structured data. DynamoDB uses cases are usually where we want to store large number of small records and have a millisecond latency, DynamoDB record size limit is 400KB
For a photosharing application, you need Both S3 and DynamoDB. S3 acts as a storage, DynamoDB is your Database which lists all galleries, files, timestamps, captions, users etc
You can store photos in Amazon S3, but photo's metadata in someother database.
Amazon S3 well suited for any objects for large size as well.
What are options to create solution based on the AWS native platform to be able to full text search in an amazon s3 bucket/s.
We have process that will be storing daily 100+ of text files ranging from 100K to 150 MB that we need to retain for 1-2 years. We want to have an ability to be able to full text search.
The Amazon S3 management console does not search inside objects. It is purely filtering on the filename ("Key") of the objects in the bucket.
If you wish to search inside objects, then you will need to implement other services such as Amazon Kendra or Elasticsearch that will read and index objects.
Amazon S3 is a "Simple Storage Service". It provides highly scalable and reliable storage, but any higher-level functions such as search need to be implemented "on top" of S3. Just think of S3 as a huge, amazingly powerful hard disk that is connected to the Internet. (Sort of.)
I'm setting up my client with a system that allows users to upload a video or two. These videos will be stored on Amazon S3, which I've not used before. I'm unsure about buckets, and what they represent. Do you think I would have a single bucket for my application, a bucket per user or a bucket per file?
If I were to just have the one bucket, presumably I'd have to have really long, illogical file names to prevent a file name clash.
There is no limit to the amount of objects you can store in a bucket, so generally you would have a single bucket per application, or even across multiple applications. Bucket names have to be globally unique across S3 so it would certainly be impossible to manage a bucket per object. A bucket per user would also be difficult if you had more than a handful of users.
For more background on buckets you can try reading Working with Amazon S3 Buckets
Your application should generate unique keys for objects you are adding to the bucket. Try and avoid numeric ascending ids, as these are considered inefficient. Simply reversing a numeric id can usually make an effective object key. See Amazon S3 Performance Tips & Tricks for a more detailed explanation.
I'm currently storing ~3 million images files in a single directory on my server, which is causing serious performance issues. I'd like to move them to Amazon S3 and I'm wondering whether I'd need to use a hierarchical folder structure or whether I can store them in a single folder on S3.
I get a large percentage of my traffic from google image search and I don't want to hurt my SEO by changing the image path, so a single folder on S3 would be ideal if there aren't any performance issues. I imagine LIST operations would be slow, but I'm okay with that.
S3 has no limit on the number of items stored in a bucket. In fact, using a 'directory' separator in key names is completely optional.
There is a practical use for using a separator in your key: as you correctly guessed listing the keys will be more difficult as you'll have to page though many list results.
However, as the S3 documentation points out you can use any character as a separator.
I am migrating my Java,Tomcat, Mysql server to AWS EC2.
I have already attached EBS volume for storing MySql data. In my web application people may upload images. So I should persist them. There are 2 alternatives in my mind:
Save uploaded images to EBS volume.
Use the S3 service.
The followings are my notes, please be skeptic about them, as my expertise is not on servers, but software development.
EBS plus: S3 storage is more expensive. (0.15 $/Gb > 0.1$/Gb)
S3 plus: Serving statics from EBS may influence my web server's performance negatively. Is this true? Does Serving images affect server performance notably? For S3 my server will not be responsible for serving statics.
S3 plus: Serving statics from EBS may result I/O cost, probably it will be minor.
EBS plus: People say EBS is faster.
S3 plus: People say S3 is more safe for persistence.
EBS plus: No need to learn API, it is straight forward to save the images to EBS volume.
Namely I can not decide, will be happy if you guide.
Thanks
The price comparison is not quite right:
S3 charges are $0.14 per GB USED, whereas EBS charges are $0.10 per GB PROVISIONED (the size of your EBS volume), whether you use it or not. As a result, S3 may or may not be cheaper than EBS.
I'm currently using S3 for a project and it's working extremely well.
EBS means you need to manage a volume + machines to attach it to. You need to add space as it's filling up and perform backups (not saying you shouldn't back up your S3 data, just that it's not as critical).
It also makes it harder to scale: when you want to add additional machines, you either need to pull off the images to a separate machine or clone the images across all. This also means you're adding a bottleneck: you'll have to manage your own upload process that will either upload to all machines or have a single machine managing it.
I recommend S3: it's set and forget. Any number of machines can be performing uploads in parallel and you don't really need to notify other machines about the upload.
In addition, you can use Amazon Cloudfront as a cheap CDN in front of the images instead of directly downloading from S3.
I have architected solutions on AWS for Stock photography sites which stores millions of images spanning TB's of data, I would like to share some of the best practice in AWS for your requirement:
P1) Store the Original Image file in S3 Standard option
P2) Store the reproducible images like thumbs etc in the S3 Reduced Redundancy option (RRS) to save costs
P3) Meta data about images including the S3 URL can be stored in Amazon RDS or Amazon DynamoDB depending upon the query complexity. Query the entries from Amazon RDS. If your query is complex it is also common practice to Store the meta data in Amazon CloudSearch or Apache Solr.
P4) Deliver your thumbs to users with low latency using Amazon CloudFront.
P5) Queue your image conversion either thru SQS or RabbitMQ on Amazon EC2
P6) If you are planning to use EBS, then they are not scalable with your EC2. So ideally you can use GlusterFS as your common storage pool for all your images. Multiple Amazon EC2 in Auto Scaled mode can still connect to it and access/write images.
You already outlined the advantages and disadvantages of both.
If you are planning to store terabytes of images, with storage requirements increasing day after day, S3 will probably be your best bet as it is built especially for these kinds of situations. You get unlimited storage space, without having to worry about sharding your data over many EBS volumes.
The recurrent cost of S3 is that it comes 50% more expensive than EBS. You will also have to learn the API and implement it in your application, but that is a one-off expense which I think you should be able to absorb very quickly.
Do you expect the images to last indefinitely?
The Amazon EBS FAQ is pretty clear; the annual failure rate is not "essentially zero"; they quote 0.1% to 0.5%. It's better than the disk under your desk, but it would need some kind of backup.