Debating on networked storage
I'm working on a project that users will create content in and then will be able to use that same content in a different area. We already use AWS services for a lot of user data and will likely put this data there too. However, to eliminate a potential point of failure with having to upload and download the content, we are looking at storing this data on a local networked server as well and only using that local server for getting the data later on.
The main reason for choosing to do this is because the content that is being created is a few MB's (likely around 10 MB each, and there is potential to create multiple things). The thinking is that this would reduce the potential for issue mid-download.
I guess my question is, does this make sense to do? If not, what could be some potential alternatives? Maybe the file size isn't really much of an issue and we should just stick to AWS only?
If this is helpful, we are using Unity to develop the applications for this project.
database amazon-web-services unity3d local
asked Nov 19 '18 at 14:48
Alex DeCamilloAlex DeCamillo
79112
add a comment |
I'm working on a project that users will create content in and then will be able to use that same content in a different area. We already use AWS services for a lot of user data and will likely put this data there too. However, to eliminate a potential point of failure with having to upload and download the content, we are looking at storing this data on a local networked server as well and only using that local server for getting the data later on.
The main reason for choosing to do this is because the content that is being created is a few MB's (likely around 10 MB each, and there is potential to create multiple things). The thinking is that this would reduce the potential for issue mid-download.
I guess my question is, does this make sense to do? If not, what could be some potential alternatives? Maybe the file size isn't really much of an issue and we should just stick to AWS only?
If this is helpful, we are using Unity to develop the applications for this project.
database amazon-web-services unity3d local
asked Nov 19 '18 at 14:48
Alex DeCamilloAlex DeCamillo
79112
add a comment |
I'm working on a project that users will create content in and then will be able to use that same content in a different area. We already use AWS services for a lot of user data and will likely put this data there too. However, to eliminate a potential point of failure with having to upload and download the content, we are looking at storing this data on a local networked server as well and only using that local server for getting the data later on.
The main reason for choosing to do this is because the content that is being created is a few MB's (likely around 10 MB each, and there is potential to create multiple things). The thinking is that this would reduce the potential for issue mid-download.
I guess my question is, does this make sense to do? If not, what could be some potential alternatives? Maybe the file size isn't really much of an issue and we should just stick to AWS only?
If this is helpful, we are using Unity to develop the applications for this project.
database amazon-web-services unity3d local
asked Nov 19 '18 at 14:48
Alex DeCamilloAlex DeCamillo
79112
I'm working on a project that users will create content in and then will be able to use that same content in a different area. We already use AWS services for a lot of user data and will likely put this data there too. However, to eliminate a potential point of failure with having to upload and download the content, we are looking at storing this data on a local networked server as well and only using that local server for getting the data later on.
The main reason for choosing to do this is because the content that is being created is a few MB's (likely around 10 MB each, and there is potential to create multiple things). The thinking is that this would reduce the potential for issue mid-download.
I guess my question is, does this make sense to do? If not, what could be some potential alternatives? Maybe the file size isn't really much of an issue and we should just stick to AWS only?
If this is helpful, we are using Unity to develop the applications for this project.
database amazon-web-services unity3d local
database amazon-web-services unity3d local
asked Nov 19 '18 at 14:48
Alex DeCamilloAlex DeCamillo
79112
asked Nov 19 '18 at 14:48
Alex DeCamilloAlex DeCamillo
79112
asked Nov 19 '18 at 14:48
Alex DeCamilloAlex DeCamillo
79112
asked Nov 19 '18 at 14:48
Alex DeCamilloAlex DeCamillo
79112
asked Nov 19 '18 at 14:48
Alex DeCamilloAlex DeCamillo
79112
79112
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
You should probably just use S3 for storing the files. S3 promises 99.99% uptime and 99.999999999% durability.
Remember, objects in S3 are automatically replicated across servers in multiple, independent availability zones in AWS. It's going to take a lot of money and effort on your part (or your company) to get something you manage on premise to be at the same level of reliability as S3.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 23:57
Matthew PopeMatthew Pope
1,6371712
Yeah, this looks like the way to go. There seems to not be much, if any, advantage to using a local server instead of S3 here. Thank you
– Alex DeCamillo
Nov 28 '18 at 21:54
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53377100%2fdebating-on-networked-storage%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You should probably just use S3 for storing the files. S3 promises 99.99% uptime and 99.999999999% durability.
Remember, objects in S3 are automatically replicated across servers in multiple, independent availability zones in AWS. It's going to take a lot of money and effort on your part (or your company) to get something you manage on premise to be at the same level of reliability as S3.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 23:57
Matthew PopeMatthew Pope
1,6371712
Yeah, this looks like the way to go. There seems to not be much, if any, advantage to using a local server instead of S3 here. Thank you
– Alex DeCamillo
Nov 28 '18 at 21:54
add a comment |
You should probably just use S3 for storing the files. S3 promises 99.99% uptime and 99.999999999% durability.
Remember, objects in S3 are automatically replicated across servers in multiple, independent availability zones in AWS. It's going to take a lot of money and effort on your part (or your company) to get something you manage on premise to be at the same level of reliability as S3.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 23:57
Matthew PopeMatthew Pope
1,6371712
Yeah, this looks like the way to go. There seems to not be much, if any, advantage to using a local server instead of S3 here. Thank you
– Alex DeCamillo
Nov 28 '18 at 21:54
add a comment |
You should probably just use S3 for storing the files. S3 promises 99.99% uptime and 99.999999999% durability.
Remember, objects in S3 are automatically replicated across servers in multiple, independent availability zones in AWS. It's going to take a lot of money and effort on your part (or your company) to get something you manage on premise to be at the same level of reliability as S3.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 23:57
Matthew PopeMatthew Pope
1,6371712
You should probably just use S3 for storing the files. S3 promises 99.99% uptime and 99.999999999% durability.
Remember, objects in S3 are automatically replicated across servers in multiple, independent availability zones in AWS. It's going to take a lot of money and effort on your part (or your company) to get something you manage on premise to be at the same level of reliability as S3.
answered Nov 25 '18 at 23:57
Matthew PopeMatthew Pope
1,6371712
answered Nov 25 '18 at 23:57
Matthew PopeMatthew Pope
1,6371712
answered Nov 25 '18 at 23:57
Matthew PopeMatthew Pope
1,6371712
answered Nov 25 '18 at 23:57
Matthew PopeMatthew Pope
1,6371712
1,6371712
Yeah, this looks like the way to go. There seems to not be much, if any, advantage to using a local server instead of S3 here. Thank you
– Alex DeCamillo
Nov 28 '18 at 21:54
add a comment |
Yeah, this looks like the way to go. There seems to not be much, if any, advantage to using a local server instead of S3 here. Thank you
– Alex DeCamillo
Nov 28 '18 at 21:54
Yeah, this looks like the way to go. There seems to not be much, if any, advantage to using a local server instead of S3 here. Thank you
– Alex DeCamillo
Nov 28 '18 at 21:54
Yeah, this looks like the way to go. There seems to not be much, if any, advantage to using a local server instead of S3 here. Thank you
– Alex DeCamillo
Nov 28 '18 at 21:54
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53377100%2fdebating-on-networked-storage%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
