http://calculator.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html
I ended up with an estimated 600USD/month bill ... so what would they gain by complicating their architecture when they're already able to handle the traffic?
http://calculator.s3.amazonaws.com/index.html
I ended up with an estimated 600USD/month bill ... so what would they gain by complicating their architecture when they're already able to handle the traffic?
If adding a CDN to your architecture is too much complication then I would definitely not want to use your product for my business. It's literally a question of pointing CloudFront to your server, and substituting the CloudFront assigned domain in for static assets.
Also, from what I can tell, they aren't handling the traffic. I have tried numerous times to use the "Open Live Instance" link and it does not work.
Thanks for the explanation of the "Almost Ready" message. I do see that, however I took it to mean that an instance was being spun up (as I waited). Might want to change that to "Coming Soon" or similar.
1gb/week with 60% traffic to the US, average 20kb size with 1000 reset requests/month. I'd love to hear some more realistic estimates. And while (server/service) price is far from the most important consideration, it sounds like they manage to stay way under 50 usd/month in hosting currently. So as anything over 30/month would be a considerable (relative) increase. Add to that doubling? the management overhead from, say, an hour a week to two -- and they'd need to see some clear benefits? And what are those?
As for "open live instance, it says "ready soon" for me - but perhaps that is because they didn't, as you say, handle the traffic after all?
Note that doesn't mean you cannot serve your resources over HTTPS. It just means you cannot alias something like "cdn.yoursite.com" to the cloudfront cdn, you will need to use the cloudfront https url.
[edit: yep, was the ssl cert thing. Now I end up with 0.00 USD/Month, which certainly isn't an unbearable expense...]