I have been using the AmazonS3 service to store some files.
I have uploaded 4 videos and they are public. I'm using a third party video player for those videos (JW Player). As a new user on the AWS Free Tier, my free PUT, POST and LIST requests are almost used up from 2000 allowed requests, and for four videos that seems ridiculous.
Am I missing something or shouldn't one upload be one PUT request, I don't understand how I've hit that limit already.
The AWS Free Tier for Amazon S3 includes:
5GB of standard storage (normally $0.023 per GB)
20,000 GET requests (normally $0.0004 per 1,000 requests)
2,000 PUT requests (normally $0.005 per 1,000 requests)
In total, it is worth up to 13.3 cents every month!
So, don't be too worried about your current level of usage, but do keep an eye on charges so you don't get too many surprises. You can always Create a Billing Alarm to Monitor Your Estimated AWS Charges.
The AWS Free Tier is provided to explore AWS services. It is not intended for production usage.
It would be very hard to find out the reason for this without debugging a bit. So I would suggest you try the following debugging :
See if you have cloudtrail enabled. If yes, then you can track the API calls to S3 to see if anything is wrong there.
If you have cloudtrail enabled then it itself put data into the S3 bucket that might also take up some of the requests.
See if you have logging enabled at the bucket level, that might give you more insight on what all requests are reaching your bucket.
Your vides are public and that is the biggest concern here as you don't know who all can access it.
Setup cloudwatch alarms to avoid any surprises and try to look at logs to find out the issue.
Related
I created a new (not even a week old) public S3-bucket to access some files remotely (it has to be public - that is the crux). Things like logging and versioning are deactivated, and pretty much all the standard options were kept.
However, I have a huge amount of requests per day (over 3000requests per day and maybe even increasing) that is not connected at all to my assessing of the files. Where does such a traffic come from? Does amazon access the files itself by default? Something like a tracking of the files? Can this be deactivated?
You can activate Amazon S3 server access logging to obtain this information. The logs will show the requests and their origin.
FYI, requests are charged at $0.0004 per 1000, therefore your 3000 requests per day are costing 1.2c per day.
I'm hosting a static website in Amazon S3 with CloudFront. Is there a way to set a limit for how many reads (for example per month) will be allowed for my Amazon S3 bucket in order to make sure I don't go above my allocated budget?
If you are concerned about going over a budget, I would recommend Creating a Billing Alarm to Monitor Your Estimated AWS Charges.
AWS is designed for large-scale organizations that care more about providing a reliable service to customers than staying within a particular budget. For example, if their allocated budget was fully consumed, they would not want to stop providing services to their customers. They might, however, want to tweak their infrastructure to reduce costs in future, such as changing the Price Class for a CloudFront Distribution or using AWS WAF to prevent bots from consuming too much traffic.
Your static website will be rather low-cost. The biggest factor will likely be Data Transfer rather than charges for Requests. Changing the Price Class should assist with this. However, the only true way to stop accumulating Data Transfer charges is to stop serving content.
You could activate CloudTrail data read events for the bucket, create a CloudWatch Event Rule to trigger an AWS Lambda Function that increments the number of reads per object in an Amazon DynamoDB table and restrict access to the objects once a certain number of reads has been reached.
What you're asking for is a very typical question in AWS. Unfortunately with near infinite scale, comes near infinite spend.
While you can put a WAF, that is actually meant for security rather than scale restrictions. From a cost-perspective, I'd be more worried about the bandwidth charges than I would be able S3 requests cost.
Plus once you put things like Cloudfront or Lambda, it gets hard to limit all this down.
The best way to limit, is to put Billing Alerts on your account -- and you can tier them, so you get a $10, $20, $100 alerts, up until the point you're uncomfortable with. And then either manually disable the website -- or setup a lambda function to disable it for you.
AWS S3 has a standard public bucket and folder (Asia Pacific region) which hosts ~30 GB of images/media. On another hand, the website and app access these images by using a direct S3 object URL. Unknowingly we run into high data transfer cost and its significantly unproportionate:
Amazon Simple Storage Service: USD 30
AWS Data Transfer: USD 110
I have also read that if EC2 and S3 is in the same region cost will be significantly lower, but problem is S3 objects are accessible from anywhere in the world from client machine directly and no EC2 is involved in between.
Can someone please suggest how can data transfer costs be reduced?
The Data Transfer charge is directly related to the amount of information that goes from AWS to the Internet. Depending on your region, it is typically charged at 9c/GB.
If you are concerned about the Data Transfer charge, there are a few things you could do:
Activate Amazon S3 Server Access Logging, which will create a log file for each web request. You can then see how many requests are coming and possibly detect strange access behaviour (eg bots, search engines, abuse).
You could try reducing the size of files that are typically accessed, such as making images smaller. Take a look at the Access Logs and determine which objects are being accessed the most, and are therefore causing the most costs.
Use less large files on your website (eg videos). Again, look at the Access Logs to determine where the data is being used.
A cost of $110 suggests about 1.2TB of data being transferred.
I am learning AWS , and came across hosting static websites using Amazon S3 and distributing to edge locations using Cloud Front and Route53.
I know that for Cloud front we pay for what we use. So my monthly bill will reflect the number of requests I get once the free tier is over.
My question is what if a hacker or someone sends a lots of requests like spamming, then will I be charged higher?
How to prevent this and does AWS has any security measures like limiting the number of requests to serve per minute or something for this ?
Pardon me if my question is very basic. I am just learning . Thanks
My question is what if a hacker or someone sends a lots of requests like spamming, then will I be charged higher?
Yes. You are charged a per-request price, as well as data transfer charges. The per-request charges are relatively low, but if they find a large file to download they can quickly run up the bandwidth charge.
does AWS has any security measures like limiting the number of requests to serve per minute or something for this ?
Yes, you want WAF, the Web Application Firewall. With it you can configure a rate-limited rule that will block an IP address after N requests within a five-minute period.
As I know you pay for Caches Invalidations on AWS but not for a number of requests done to your CloudFront distributions.
Folks,
What is the throughput limit on GET calls to a single object in a S3 bucket? The AWS documentation suggests implementing CloudFront, however, they do not cover the case when a single object exists in a bucket. Does anyone know if the same applies, ie ~300 GET requests/sec?
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/request-rate-perf-considerations.html
Thanks!
Note: as of July 17 2018, the request limits have been dramatically increased along with the auto-partitioning of s3 buckets.
More information here
There is no throughput limit applied on objects in Amazon S3. However, a high rate of requests per second may limit the ability for S3 to respond to queries. As per the documentation you linked, this will only be of concern above 300 requests per second.
Larger objects can therefore provide more throughput than smaller objects at the same number of requests per second.
Amazon CloudFront can provide faster responses because information is cached rather than served directly from Amazon S3. CloudFront also has over 50 edge locations throughout the world, allowing it to serve content in parallel from multiple locations and at lower latency compared to S3.