Malcolm Tredinnick wrote: > Then those people deserve to be beaten heavily about the head and > shoulders. S3 is NOT a reliable upload endpoint. They (Amazon) say > there'll be approximately a 1% failure rate for attempted uploads. As 37 > signals have noted in the past (they use it for their whiteboard file > storage), that doesn't mean that when you try again it will work, > either. It means, in practice, that periodically for 1% of the time, all > your uploads will fail.
Nobody stops a developer from doing both things in parallel: storing on disk and streaming to S3. Then when S3 fails a stored file can be scheduled for repeating uploading. The reason for not doing it only over-the-disk way is speed. Since 99% of uploads do succeed they will gain heavily from not doing writes and reads of the whole file on local disk. Anyway S3 is just an example. It could be some local media-server instead. I think the main reason between an upload handler and a file backend is that the latter is generally simpler to write and the former is generally more flexible. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
