Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I notice that a lot of people prefer upload the images and videos in storage services like AWS S3. Those images are such a slider, logo, product's images, random images, etc.
What is the big difference to upload those images in the server or in a services like S3?
Prices? Bandwidth? Access? It is more fast? Scalability?
Thanks
Please read it,
https://www.linkeit.com/blog/what-is-amazon-s3-and-its-benefits
in case if you will use your server for static files you will need maintain
Scalability
Security
Backups ( You need do it reliable and durable )
And many other
Related
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
Since AMAZON RDS supports encrypting your database. Does anyone know after encryption, can I still query my data?
Thank you!
Amazon RDS encrypts data at rest (on disk).
Once it is read from disk, it is automatically decrypted.
Your queries will operate the same as a non-encrypted database. The encryption is transparent from SQL.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
I am building a food ordering service api. So far I have lambda to process adding items to the cart and process payments. I want to ask before I pick a service to host the menu. I have a csv of menu items that I would like to upload where it has the attributes: name, price, spicy, vegetarian, etc. I was thinking of using DynamoDB, is this the best service for what I am trying to accomplish?
Start with your data sitting in a (protected) s3 bucket - you probably aren't going to need a database for such a small amount of data.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I am building a game using Unity and I want to track how well an individual does over a period of time. So I want to save their time, level, high score, etc. I am writing the scores to either a .txt file or .json file at the end of the game. The game will be deployed to Android OS (maybe IOs). I want the file to be sent off before the game returns to the home menu.
I wanted to know what is the better option for collecting the game data. Amazon RDS or S3 Bucket?
If it's a Text File use S3, it is great.
If you have JSON values, Use DynamoDb.
AWS Dynamodb
If your JSON object is less than 4KB, DynamoDB is significantly faster than S3 for individual operations.Refer to this Link.
But yes, No RDS if you have only JSON. NoSQL is great. [Dynamodb]
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm currently working on a react-native project similar to Instagram using Firebase Real-time database and Storage. I was considering switching to Amazon AWS as with firebase complex queries are not supported. Does Amazon AWS provide something more or should I just stick with Firebase?
Amazon AWS is much more complex I would say, it also requires more experience. If you don't have huge data on background and Firebase has all features which you are planning to use, stay on Firebase.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I was discussing with friends about the best way to store files in amazon.
I believed that an s3 bucket was the best way to save static files as images from a website.
But friends said that it is not the best way to work with s3 because of the high cost of having this image requested many times.
I need to know the best place to save images that will be rendered inside my site (which is inside an EC2 instance).
Could someone clarify this doubt? Saving images inside the S3 in sites that have many requests is expensive?
For storing static files like images AWS S3 is one of the best option.
S3 is one of the cheapest cloud storage, you won't be charged for the number of times it's read, only amount of outbound traffic will bbe charged. For get requuest/put request there is also a charge, but you shouldn't need it as per my understanding, you can clarify your use case more precisely. You can also calculate the price here.
Find all the storage services AWS offers here: https://aws.amazon.com/products/storage/