NYCPHP Meetup

[Rob Marscher]

On Jun 6, 2008, at 2:20 PM, John Campbell wrote:
> I do use S3 to serve static content for a production site, and I have
> been extremely pleased with the quality of the service.

How much static content?  Large files only... or have you tried  
serving, say, all the images, static html, css, javascript, etc?  I  
seem to remember hearing reports early on that it wasn't necessarily  
the best performance for serving your 2k background png.  It obviously  
works well for stuff like media, photo archives, etc.  But I'm  
wondering if you could use it to really offset the number of requests  
and load from your web server.  Serving static content from apache  
running php is a waste of resources... but I'm wondering if offloading  
it to S3 would be better (or at least cheaper and not too much slower/ 
reliable) than maintaining your own dedicated server for static content.

Thanks,
Rob