Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

My website is having nearly 50 GB of images and growing gradually. I want to move these images to either S3 or another image hosting server.

As an alternative solution, I want to keep these at another domain and want to serve images from there.

In terms of performance and monthly server charges, which one will be good - S3 or dedicated image server?

share|improve this question

migrated from Oct 18 '10 at 7:48

This question came from our site for professional and enthusiast programmers.

closed as not a real question by Chopper3 Oct 18 '10 at 8:41

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

I would recommend going with a cloud storage solution instead a dedicated server, because of the reduced maintenance requirements, ability to scale on demand, and lower costs.

I am using Microsoft's Azure cloud for a solution I'm currently building, but Amazon's S3 is an almost identical alternative as a storage service. With small variations, Microsoft's and Amazon's prices are in the range of USD 0.10 - 0.15 per month per GB stored. In case you decide to consider these, you can check the Azure and S3 sites for specific pricing details.

Regarding performance, as I mentioned, my experience is with Mircosoft's Azure cloud and I haven't had any issues with downtimes or bandwidth bottlenecks. I'm pretty sure Amazon's offering is solid, too.

Hope this helps.

share|improve this answer