AMAZON Cloudfront and S3

Post #311,984 by folkert 7/29/09 7:31:06 PM 7/29/09 7:32:24 PM Reply	AMAZON Cloudfront and S3 For what we do... maximum $10/month and its distributed. We do far less that this guesstimate. but the speedup is phenomenal. http://calculator.s3...ws.com/calc5.html You need AMAZON S3 and AMAZON CloudFront. Amazon S3 (US) Storage: 5 GB-months Data Transfer-in: 5 GB Data Transfer-out: 100 GB PUT/LIST Requests: 1500 Requests Other Requests: 200000 Requests Amazon CloudFront Data Transfer-out - US: 92.3 GB Requests - US: 193000 Requests Data Transfer-out - Europe: 7.6 GB Requests - Europe: 4000 Requests Data Transfer-out - Japan: 2.6 GB Requests - Japan: 2000 Requests Data Transfer-out - Hong Kong: 1.3 GB Requests - Hong Kong: 1000 Requests Total Cost $36.12 Of course these are WILD guesstimates. Figure your split for CloudFront based on what you see now. Remember the Data-Transfer-in is only when putting stuff there. Pless then... its an awesome thing and you can CNAME the calculated host and also make an HTTPS compatible name for it too... so people can browse your site with https should you ever want to support it. Another thing AMAZON CloudFront is HUGELY FAST! HUGELY FAST! Edited by folkert July 29, 2009, 07:32:24 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #311,986 by drook 7/29/09 7:50:04 PM Reply	Are those numbers per month? If you look at mine again, it's 68 GB per day. (Officially 2,000 GB per month, so the daily cap is marginally lower in July than June.) That's not a typo. I had 33,670 page views yesterday. A typical blog post might have anywhere from 15-30 images, say 60 KB each, so about 1-2 MB, not counting headers, thumbnails and other design elements. The main page has 3 posts. I got lucky yesterday that I noticed the traffic early and did a "welcome" post with no images, which pushed a regular post off the front page. If I hadn't done that, I probably would have exceeded my cap and been off the air by early afternoon. -- Drew
Post #311,988 by folkert 7/29/09 8:03:24 PM Reply	Yikes... Misread. right about $682/month for your numbers off a Distributed Content Delivery Network 1043770 hits (cheap part) 2000GB/month (expensive part) You are starting to get into the expensive areas now.
Post #311,989 by drook 7/29/09 8:10:29 PM Reply	That's what I figured And it's an oddly large bump. It seems the shared hosting deals set bandwidth caps that they believe are beyond what most users will ever need. (CPU time is the exact opposite.) To scale up, you need to move to a whole different class of host. -- Drew
Post #312,074 by scoenye 7/30/09 8:20:43 PM Reply	Your images may be a lot larger than that I only looked at one arbitrary post (http://blog.cooklike...h-onion-soup.html). The thumbnails are ~60K, the images themselves are ~600K
Post #312,076 by drook 7/30/09 8:28:31 PM Reply	Most people don't click through to most of the pictures Although you're right, a few people doing that can really eat up bandwidth. -- Drew
Post #312,077 by Steve Lowe 7/30/09 8:32:06 PM Reply	Server-side compression? You're probably already doing this, but you might explore it further: http://www.webrefere...http/compression/
Post #312,078 by drook 7/30/09 8:40:06 PM Reply	The HTML is coming from blogger.com It's only the static images coming from my site. You know what's funny? The #1 URL by traffic volume is http://cooklikeyourg...r.com/favicon.ico And it's 510b. -- Drew
Post #312,084 by folkert 7/30/09 10:32:14 PM Reply	Re: The HTML is coming from blogger.com I just edited you favicon.ico... Dropped from 510b to 252b. Layer 1, 4bpp, 1 bit alpha, 16 slot palette compressed Layer 2, 1bpp, 1 bit alpha, 2 lot palette compressed You might want to go through you pics/images
Post #312,089 by drook 7/30/09 11:13:07 PM Reply	Yeah, I don't know much about compressing photos -- Drew
Post #312,092 by folkert 7/31/09 6:30:48 AM Reply	Better learn and quickly... Lessen your quality on jpeg... or Reduce you colors count... In the following link (two pics 99K and 66K), I only reduced the quality of the JPEG. You might say its a bit darker, but you can up the brightness a bit. http://www.gregfolkert.net/pics/drook/ Saving at least 1/3rd in image size... with just a weee little bit of processing. Might just be worth that $700/month.

Welcome to IWETHEY!