What is better for serving static files of most websites (javascripts, css, images, html): S3, something like EC2 or yet another option?
What is better for serving static files of most websites (javascripts, css, images, html):
Share
Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.
Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.
Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.
Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.
Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.
What is better for serving static files of most websites (javascripts, css, images, html): S3, something like EC2 or yet another option?
S3 with CloudFront enabled would be my choice; then you get the benefits from S3, plus fast access for your users through their edge-locations.
If you have some really high performance demands, you should look into something that is physically located near your users. In my case, swedish providers are a bit faster than any of Amazons solutions (but usually not as nice to use).
EC2 is not really made for static files (or rather, it’s made for so much more).