| Photography Forum: Suggestions: |
 |
Q. new site infrastructure
Asked by Roberto Lucignani
(K=840) on 1/21/2014
|
wow, it's funny that I was thinking to name of the image site I used in the past and yesterday I received and email from it telling that the site was down for a year.
I'm sorry for what happened to the site I was not aware that it was down. Unfortunately I have not much time to dedicate to photography.
I have a question for the admins, have you ever considered to move the website in the cloud ?
It could have a lot of advantages instead of running the site on on-premise hardware.
On cloud you can take advantage of infinte storage for the images, distribute them worldwide via CDN, benefits of auto-scaling group to deal with load peaks etc.
Anyway, I'm very happy to see that the website is back again. I wish you all the best.
Regards,
Roberto
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Phillip Cohen
(K=10561) - Comment Date 1/21/2014
|
Hi Roberto, we are looking into it but have not made any decisions yet. We have to see what kind of budget we have to work with. Right now the traffic does not warrant it, nor does the income, but hopefully as we grow this will be an option. There is a lot of headroom in the present server and we have lots of storage remaining.
Welcome back and we hope that when you get some time you will start posting images once again.
Take care my friend,
Phil
|
|
|
|
Jeroen Wenting
(K=25317) - Comment Date 1/26/2014
|
Cloud is just a hype name for distributed hosting and extra overhead in data transfer.
The "infinite storage" is a farce, you're limited by the size of the account you pay for with the cloud hosting provider rather than the size of the disk you rent from your hardware hosting provider.
Same thing, just different wording again.
If speed is less important that availability irrespective of location, it's great.
Think dropbox and similar services.
It's also a nifty idea for SAAS distribution of software, as the data distribution is already defined by the cloud provider and you can just plug into that.
Think Office 365.
For a more or less monolithic website though, I'd not consider it a good option. Especially as the amount of data per request can be rather large.
|
|
|
|
Roberto Lucignani
(K=840) - Comment Date 1/30/2014
|
Hi Jeroen,
I don't agree with your sentence:
"Cloud is just a hype name for distributed hosting and extra overhead in data transfer."
It's a common belief between who doesn't work in the field. I think you have to look more in depth to cloud technologies before stating something like that.
Have a look here: http://aws.amazon.com/products/
About "data transfer" I don't know you mean exactly, if you are talking of available bandwidth to serve large scale websites there's nothing that compares with the power you have on the cloud. Obviously if you are facebook and you run your own datacenters you can reach the same bandwidth level, but at which cost ?
I work on-premsie, cluod and mixed on-premise/virtual private cloud architectures and trust me, there's no way to scale out your services as in the cloud.
By the way Dropbox runs on Amazon AWS.
Especially for an image hosting web site having infinite storage on Amazon S3 and distributing the images worldwide through their CDN would be a very great solution in terms of reliability and performance.
Other cloud services I worked with are :
Microsoft Azure
Google App Engine
Rackspace Openstack
Are all three different from each one. Microsoft it's more PAAS like Google App Engine, instead Rackspace Openstack cloud it's IAAS.
My 2 cents
R. Lucignani
|
|
|
|
|
