I don't understand why Amazon doesn't bolt a shell like that onto S3. It seems that anybody using S3 seriously has to do it themselves which makes it just another hurdle to obtaining larger partners. I understand that it is a complicated system (regardless of the name), but the interface should be simple (which it pretty much is) and it should be rock-solid (which it isn't). I've been evaluating this since pre-beta and I still don't feel that it is worth the cost or risk. I currently store my own stuff much cheaper, but I have the management headache that I'd love to outsource. My biggest concern to this day is that they still charge .15/GB/month which they charged almost two years ago. My costs have been cut in half since then.
Ben C
· 1 year ago
THIS is why I host my photos and videos on Phanfare rather than that "not-so-smug now are we" competitor of yours! Good job Phanfolks!!
Brad
· 1 year ago
Ben - Was Smug down because of S3? I know they do a lot of rendering and stuff on EC2 and my understanding is that EC2 was down because of the S3 outage.
anand
· 1 year ago
hi andrew- quick question, i remember your post from a year ago where you explained that s3 was only used for backup/archiving. is s3 now being used as primary storage with phanfare's DC used for hot storage? (if so, was this a result of amazon's SLA for s3?) sorry if you already explained this somewhere.
All Comments
quick question, i remember your post from a year ago where you explained that s3 was only used for backup/archiving. is s3 now being used as primary storage with phanfare's DC used for hot storage? (if so, was this a result of amazon's SLA for s3?) sorry if you already explained this somewhere.
thanks