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

Would storing pages in S3 with only client-side code reduce costs in comparison to hosting them in Amazon's EC2?

Right now I use a cms to manage all of my pages and users for a website, but I was thinking about just saving the logged out state of my pages so that they would display as if there was not cms. To change the pages all I would have to do is save the files on my development server and push it to S3. My intuition says that this would be more economical than storing both the pages that need the client and server-side code, and the pages that just need the client-side code, but I have not tried this.

All pages on EC2.

Proposed Alternative:
EC2 Hosts: Client/Server side Pages
S3 Hosts: Client-side pages (Logged out state)

share|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

As long as the HTML/Javascript downloaded from the server is static, it can be served up from S3. It doesn't matter if the webpage has client-side dynamic code, only that the server isn't going to do any processing.

Costs of S3 would be very small compared to a full EC2 instance. EC2 instances would cost you an hourly fee of atleast $0.005 per hour, whereas S3 would cost you $0.10 per GB per month.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.