Posted by itserich on September 29, 2010 at 2:45pm
It seems so basic but I have not found discussion.
Is there a reason why CNAME can not be used to replace the typical sites/default/files with an Amazon S3 or Cloudfront bucket?
I simply want to let users upload videos and images and Amazon S3 seems a safe option.
I simply want a fast, quick option. My understanding is Drupal 7 will improve CDN options. I am not a professional developer.
Thanks for any insight.
Comments
My hosting company Site
My hosting company Site Ground responded to use Cloudfront, which I have tried. I don't understand why there is the need.
Scalability is the need
Not sure if this issue got solved or not, but I have a client that wants me to develop an image/video library that will initally have about 1TB but needs to go to about 2TB eventually. Amazon AWS S3 is a perfect solution for this. And my understanding of Cloudfront is that it is temporary storage. You still have to house the original files on your local site. Still looking for a way to tell imagecache or other modules to store images in a bucket instead of a local directory.
I never did find a solution,
I never did find a solution, and my site is not big enough to be an issue. I seem to recall that Drupal 7 is supposed to be more easily integrated with Cloud storage.
S3fs is a good non Drupal solution
I had a look at a few modules which attempt to provide s3 integration with Drupal, and wasn't happy with them. My problem was that once I was in a wysiwyg editor such as creditor, they'd expect a local filesystem.
In the end, I found the easiest solution all round was to give a Drupal a local filesystem which had been mounted from S3, using s3fs. See: -
http://www.practicalclouds.com/content/guide/storing-drupal-content-amaz...
Regards
Dave
http://www.practicalclouds.com
Host your Drupal website in EC2