0

I'm using S3 to serve static image assets to a website. I'm a developer in Montréal, Quebec. My client's office is in LA. Once every month or three we're seeing S3 completely fail to serve images to my client's location for a period of a few minutes to a couple of hours. The last time this happened I was able to verify that the problem did not affect me in Montréal. The S3 status page has never reported any problems for the times my client has seen the problem.

S3 bills itself as a way to host static assets, but this is not really acceptable. S3 aims to provide a 99.9% monthly uptime which I believe translates to about 45 minutes of downtime a month - even if we accept this, this is not really acceptable for a CDN!

Any ideas?

1
  • Put CloudFront in front of it.
    – ceejayoz
    Nov 21, 2014 at 16:44

1 Answer 1

1

In some cases, it could be routing problems that are outside Amazon's control, hence why it won't show up on their status pages as being a problem. Look into using multiple regions for S3 or using Cloudfront instead.

Since this case may be specific to your configuration, contacting Amazon about the problem would be the first step in resolving this, although Cloudfront would likely solve it for you (or even use Cloudflare as a caching layer, for example).

1
  • CloudFront - thank you! They sell so many things now I couldn't find what I was looking for ;)
    – Dagrada
    Nov 21, 2014 at 21:25

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .