I just happened to run into documentation on an S3 feature that might address your concern ...
"To host a static website on S3, It is possible to define a Amazon S3 bucket as a *Website Endpoint*." http://trac.cyberduck.ch/wiki/help/en/howto/s3 On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 9:10 PM, Gabriel de Oliveira Barbosa < [email protected]> wrote: > I'm on same dilema, but one point that make diferences to me is couchdb > vhosts and rewrites, it can be very helpfull when you have complex routes > for your static files. > > S3 don't suport url wildcards also, but I read in some place that couchdb > can do this. > > On Thursday, January 12, 2012, Mark Hahn <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've been storing a lot of images as couch attachments. I now have to > > support videos that are too large for couch attachments. So I pretty > much > > have to consider using S3 since I'm on AWS anyway and S3 scales > > automatically compared to my OS file system. > > > > Since I have to use S3 for videos, why not use it for images? Has anyone > > else compared these alternatives? > > > > These are the consequences to switching to S3 that I can think of ... > > > > 1) Smaller load on couchdb for replicating, compaction, disk usage etc > > > > 2) S3 would give less load on cpu and nginx for serving files to client > > > > 3) Performance for file access? Would S3 be slower? > > > > 4) Option to use CDN in the future? > > > > 5) S3 has finer-grained access control than attachments. I can't let the > > client directly access couch on my server because couch has no > read-access > > controls. > > > > 6) Do small files have a disadvantage in S3? I see they charge for IO > > transfers, whatever that means. > > > > After typing this in I'm starting to think that if a file is needed > across > > servers, no matter how small, it should be in S3 instead of an > attachment. > > >
