I'm thinking of hosting all my uploads (pictures from gallery, downloads, attachments, and database) to a server cloud (Amazon), while the rest will be on a VPS. I figure this option would help curb server costs, given that storage of data is relatively cheap.
Has anyone tried this setup? If anyone has advice, please share it!
Generally amazon would be more expensive that a vps in most cases. I do use amazon s3/cloudfront for hosting static files.
Technically, this is possible for sure. Just one word of advice: you have to know very well what you're doing and what security and latency implications it might have (and how to solve them/determine if it's acceptable) before you attempt to do this at all.
Quote from: vbgamer45 on June 02, 2019, 07:58:54 PM
Generally amazon would be more expensive that a vps in most cases. I do use amazon s3/cloudfront for hosting static files.
So you kept the database in the same server as the SMF files?
From what I've seen, server safe form Amazon is relatively cheap.
Quote from: CoreISP on June 02, 2019, 08:04:24 PM
Technically, this is possible for sure. Just one word of advice: you have to know very well what you're doing and what security and latency implications it might have (and how to solve them/determine if it's acceptable) before you attempt to do this at all.
What sort of unforeseen complications are you referring to?
Quote from: Study Force on June 02, 2019, 07:44:00 PM
I'm thinking of hosting all my uploads (pictures from gallery, downloads, attachments, and database) to a server cloud (Amazon), while the rest will be on a VPS.
I do think it is possible. You can do this as cloud server are more secured and have a great up time. Which means you can access your data at anytime.
Quote
I figure this option would help curb server costs, given that storage of data is relatively cheap.
I don't think the same way. Amazon AWS is comparatively the finest option but can't consider it cheapest. There are many other hosting providers which are cheap and offers great cloud hosting service at much economical price. As, the likes of DigitalOcean, Vultr dedicated server, Cloudways, etc.
ummmm..... what exactly do you think a "cloud server" is?
It's not some magic thing that site "in the clouds"... it's just a normal server (or multiple servers with failover). They still sit in data centers and have hosts that support (or do not support) them....
Seriously... my host has 99% or more uptime. It has failover and backups... and it's acessible from anywhere in the world... in other words, it's a server on the internet, just like your magical cloud server...
There is a valid argument for putting files on S3, because it's cheaper, though you need to be at the scale where it matters.
We do this at work for clients who typically have 500GB or more of uploaded files which we hive off to S3 because the cost of having a (full) server with that storage vs using S3, S3 wins.
Latency is also reasonably solvable, cache the things accessed locally for 24 hours since their last request or use signed requests for sensitive things depending on how much you care about access rights.
The big issue comes down then to rewriting the guts of everything that handles files in SMF, which is non trivial :(