I remember reading somewhere that there was a serious pitfall to using Amazon S3 for hosting a static website. I forgot what it was though. To me, S3 seems like a perfect option. Super fast, super ...
We have a small business website that needs to host lot of images and we are trying to decide if we need s3 to host all our images or should we just use a NAS for storing and hosting our images ...
Right now, amazon s3 holds all my images, but I must wonder, is that necessary or for the best? It seems to me like for images, such as a favicon, I should just host it on my own server since s3 ...
I'm running a (small) image hosting site which has been getting a little bit of traction lately (2,000 to 5,000 visitors a day, spikes up to 10,000). It's hosted on Linode and I've already run out of ...