I have an amazon s3 account. As i am expecting a large amount of traffic to my site i want to put the videos to be placed in my s3 account and stream it up to my website. How can i do that?
Thanks
Prady
The simplest way is to upload it using the AWS Management Console for S3, use that to set its permissions to be publicly accessible, and then just access the usual S3 URL for it:
http://bucket-name.s3.amazonaws.com/key-name
Depending on exactly how much traffic you're getting, you can look into using Amazon's CloudFront distribution network. That will speed things up for your users, especially if they span the globe.
Related
I have a large quantity of videos on my Vimeo account that I would like to migrate to my AWS S3 account.
Rather than go through the time consuming process of downloading from Vimeo to my local machine then uploading from my local machine to S3, is there a way where I can do a direct transfer from Vimeo to S3?
If possible, I would want to create a script to iterate through each video via Vimeo API and set up the path to where it would go into S3 then initiate a direct transfer. Any ideas or suggestions would be much appreciated!
If you have a PRO account or higher, you can use the API to get download links for videos on your account, including download links for the original source file. Those download file links should be able to be used for importing into S3. Note that the links provided via the Vimeo API are expiring HTTP 302 redirects to the video file resource, so make sure you take note of the expiration time also provided in the response.
Download links are returned with the rest of a video's metadata, so I suggest using the fields parameter to only return the metadata needed.
http://developer.vimeo.com/api/common-formats#json-filter
https://developer.vimeo.com/api/reference/videos#GET/users/{user_id}/videos
My media storage is Openstack object storage (swift) in the cloud (OVH).
Regarding the user-rights on the uploaded media:
Images [A] are viewable by all users, but only deletable by
user-owner/ uploader.
Images [B] are very private. CRUD by user-owner/ uploader and
viewable by some other users.
I looked around for solutions and came across pre-signed (temporary) urls., see also this article.
I was wondering whether this provides an acceptable security level. An alternative I could think of is authenticating all users via openstack's authentication module, Keystone. But maybe that's just completely stupid and/ or overkill. I started to look in that direction as it might be similar to AWS S3 use of IAM policies.
My questions:
Is the pre-signed url solution the way to go? And if not why not?
How would processing images (creating thumbnails) look like? You
grab it from the storage, process and store it back and delete local
versions, I suppose?
I am pasting links to s3 images in hipchat room but they are not getting rendered, any idea why? I have my own AWS account in which i have hosted images in s3?
I think this might be because of access issues. Any ideas are appreciated.
We are developing a mobile app using Parse as our BAAS solution but using Amazon S3 for storage of our media files. All of our users upload media files into their own individual folders inside of our app's bucket. As the user uploads media files we update their records in Parse so it knows where to download the files. That's the easy part.
I've spent quite a bit of time researching the different policies for S3 buckets and I am trying to get a grip on the proper way to ensure the security of the content uploaded. If you do all of your work with DynamoDB or SimpleDB then it's easy because you're essentially adjusting your ACLs with the IAM accounts and whatnot. If you use Amazon Cognito it's also easy because authentication happens through Google, Facebook or Amazon accounts. In my case I am using Parse to authenticate users which cannot speak to Amazon directly.
My goal is that only the currently logged in Parse user with ID #1234567 can access their own 1234567 folder and files (as well as any other user given permission by this person for collaboration). Here is a post similar to what I'm trying to accomplish: amazon S3 bucket policy - restricting access by referer BUT not restricting if urls are generated via query string authentication
...but how do I accomplish this with the current user's ID number?
Even better question is whether that post mentioned above is best practice or should I instead be looking at creating an EC2 server to handle access to these files? Should I be looking at CloudFront to serve private content? Or is there another method that works better for what I am trying to accomplish? I am going in circles and my head is spinning.
Thanks to whoever can help straighten me out.
Well since Parse is being shut down I am migrating to another service. This question is no longer relevant.
I'm using Amazon S3 to store some mp3 files.
My web application, uses the Soundmanager2 javascript library to load the files from the Amazon bucket, and play them to users.
When the first user clicks on an mp3, soundmanager starts playing the file, and as intended, caches the rest of the song as it is being played.
Problem is, if a second user clicks on the same mp3, he must wait until the first user caches the whole song, which is unacceptable for my website.
I understand that Amazon S3 somehow 'streams' the file exclusively to the first request. Is there a way to be able to use that file simultaneously, i.e. users be able to play the same mp3's at the same time?
Also, would the CloudFront functionality solve this issue?
Thank you for your help!
Alex
(By the way, my application is built on Ruby on Rails 3, and hosted on Heroku)
There is no limitation in S3 that restricts simultaneous downloads of a single object.
I would suggest that you use a tool, like Charles, to inspect the HTTP requests and see if another service is causing the second client's request to be delayed.