http://disqus.com/by/itjuju/enTue, 23 Jun 2009 11:45:19 -0000http://www.marketingtechblog.com/wordpress-amazon-s3/#comment-11622849<p>Douglas,</p><p>From their description it sound's like Amazon is doing something completely different, they say:</p><p>"Amazon CloudFront uses 14 edge locations in major markets worldwide. Eight are in the United States (Ashburn, VA; Dallas/Fort Worth, TX; Los Angeles, CA; Miami, FL; Newark, NJ; Palo Alto, CA; Seattle, WA; St. Louis, MO). Four are in Europe (Amsterdam; Dublin; Frankfurt; London). Two are in Asia (Hong Kong, Tokyo)."</p><p>Their basically taking advantage of internet exchanges to leverage their closeness to the end user where as CDN's like Akamai have servers much closer to the end user usually within the ISP's network.</p><p>Amazons way of doing it is a lot cheaper and more effective than Akamai's, but then again they have the coverage.</p><p>Rogerio - <a href="http://www.itjuju.com/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.itjuju.com/">http://www.itjuju.com/</a><br></p>itjujuTue, 23 Jun 2009 11:45:19 -0000http://www.marketingtechblog.com/wordpress-amazon-s3/#comment-11622457<p>I wouldn't say it’s difficult to "get enterprise performance with a CMS like WordPress."</p><p>It's all in how you setup your infrastructure or the way you host your CMS. <br>The way the CMS itself has been coded can also play a big part in its performance as Carlton pointed out with using the wp-supercache plugin.</p><p>It would have been better if the functionality of the wp-supercache plugin was built in to wordpress from the start - but that would require re writing the front end. Which is what <a href="http://lightpress.org" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="lightpress.org">lightpress.org</a> did.</p><p>Off loading static content to something like S3 is a good way to offload processing and delivery from the main server. It’s an easy and convenient way of tapping into Amazons infrastructure to do the heavy lifting but once you reach a cretin threshold, Amazon will start to get expensive and it will be cheaper to do it in house and go with a CDN.</p><p>Rogerio - <a href="http://www.itjuju.com/" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank" title="http://www.itjuju.com/">http://www.itjuju.com/</a></p><p>P.s. <br>I've been thinking about that situation for a bit, if just 100 people got together and contributed each month the price of a decent server that they would normally be paying for they could build/put together hosting infrastructure that could handle almost anything.</p>itjujuTue, 23 Jun 2009 11:36:28 -0000