Subject:
|
Re: Brickshelf + Amazon S3 = Solution?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 17 Jul 2007 00:00:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
7089 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Eric Smith wrote:
> > In lugnet.general, Jake McKee wrote:
> > > Just wanted to throw out a potential solution for Kevin - Would Amazon's S3
> > > product be a solution to the bandwidth/storage concerns?
> > >
> > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/browse.html?node=16427261
> >
> >
> > Since S3 is talking about using BitTorrent to move data, this would not be a
> > good solution for data that needs to be available on a real-time basis. It
> > sounds like it's more appropriate for an online backup solution.
>
> As I understand it, BitTorrent is an additional option on top of the standard
> functionality. More info here:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yu54wz
>
> 37signals is dealing with a massive amount of files by the minute based on S3.
> Here's the info:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/27wj8m
>
> More success stories: http://tinyurl.com/26jwp6
>
> The story of particular interest is the SmugMug (a photo sharing site)
> story:http://tinyurl.com/yw2w9e
>
> "The company's customers have added more than 10 terabytes of new images each
> month. The company figures it has saved roughly $500,000 in storage expenditures
> and cut its disk storage array costs in half - all with zero increase in staff
> or datacenter space. [...] They are a subscription-based online photo sharing
> company with over 150,000 paying customers who depend on SmugMug to safely store
> more than 70 million photos on their behalf. [...]From writing the first line of
> code to being fully operational on Amazon S3 took SmugMug just one week. SmugMug
> is copying 80 terabytes worth of photos to Amazon S3, which represents more than
> 70,000,000 originals with six display copies of each. That's about half a
> billion individual images. All of SmugMug's new photos are being backed up to
> Amazon S3, which is an additional 10 terabytes of new images added to Amazon S3
> each month."
>
> S3 would still be a bit of money per month, but my guess it that it's nowhere
> NEAR whatever Kevin's paying now.
>
> Jake
> ---
> Jake McKee
> Private Citizen
> "Keeping hope alive"
Hi Jake,
Amazon S3 is the exact solution I thought of when I heard about this problem. I
glanced at the API documentation, and it doesn't seem like a difficult solution
to implement, either.
Now that it seems that Brickshelf won't be making a comeback, maybe it's a
solution that people in the community could solve. I have some meager Ruby on
Rails skills to offer, as well as XHTML+CSS experience, and would love to pitch
in and help create the next Brickshelf.
Dave
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Brickshelf + Amazon S3 = Solution?
|
| (...) As I understand it, BitTorrent is an additional option on top of the standard functionality. More info here: (URL) is dealing with a massive amount of files by the minute based on S3. Here's the info: (URL) success stories: (URL) story of (...) (19 years ago, 16-Jul-07, to lugnet.general)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
