I need to have several videos and photos on my website.
Primarily videos will range to more than a 100, and photos might be more than 10000.
Since i am using a shared server hosting, i cant have enough space to upload them on my server nor will the performance graph be any good.
Hence i decided, i can upload the videos on YouTube and embed them in my web site.
However the problem is with the photographs. Which would be the best photostorage web service which can
A) Have a Web API
B) Would have no need to create a badge or in any way not make it obvious that the photo is from some other source.
C) Unlimited Storage
D) High performance retrieval.
picasa fit all your requirements except unlimited storage. but you have a lot of space and can buy extra storage for little money
I don't know if you want a cloud based service or a self-hosted service?
If you want to self hosted an image hosting service, then you can check this project, ImageS3, web admin console, REST api, and of course, no usage limitation on APIs.
If you wish to use the cloud based image hosting service, then you can use imgur.com, imageshack.com or www.imgix.com.
Related
first post here although i've been reading for about 7 years :). Please take it easy on me if there are things that are wrong with my post.
I am working on a social network/marketplace for online education. The business problem i am dealing with is how to delegate the cost of hosting (most importantly video content) to the vendors themselves, in order to simplify the platform's relationship with them.
As an example, Patreon.com integrates with vimeo to upload videos from patreon website straight to vimeo, thus the platform is not incurring the cost of hosting creator videos.
My question is if it would be possible to do the same thing with amazon s3 or digital ocean s3. Instead of our app (laravel+vue) to have it's own hosting on amazon s3, each user of our app would be able to connect their own s3 drives, access his buckets/objects and share them on our platform. That way they can pay their own bills for hosting and we don't have to deal with "re-selling" hosting.
Has anyone gone the route of allowing their app users to enter their own S3 hosting credentials, store them in the db, and when retrieving the file, setting those credentials on the fly, as ml59 suggested, and accessing the user's s3 files.
Thanks,
hopefull someone can shed some light on this topic and here are some of my questions:
How do big ecommerce websites manage their images for their websites?
Is there any Best Practices should be consider when deciding where to keep websites images?
I have heard to keep the images in multiple folder structure on the same server where the website is hosted so websites can render them easily and fast since they are all on same server - Is this the idea solution?
How do professionals or big ecommerce handle images storage and maintain website images reliability and stability?
Is Azure or AWS etc best place to store images for websites rendering?
Thanks in advance!
Keeping the files in the same server comes with more risk, if your server crashes or region goes down your application stopped as well as your files not gonna render if you are using those files separately for different applications like mobile applications.
In this case, users will also face a high loading time for those media files if the users are not in the same zone as your application hosted.
The best practice to store the image/media files on some cloud storage like S3 or Azure Blob then connect it with some CDN like CloudFront or Azure CDN.
Now you can serve your media files via CDN which will act as a global caching system for your media files.
I am looking for free solution to image hosting with CDN. I got website on small paid hosting and there will be lot of image galleries which I would like to upload to some cloud like Google Drive and use cloud's CDN to link images on my web. Any recommendations for free solution ?
CDN and cloud storage like Google Drive are two different things.
A CDN can be defined as:
A content delivery network or content distribution network is a
geographically distributed network of proxy servers and their data
centers. The goal is to provide high availability and high performance
by distributing the service spatially relative to end-users.
Where as cloud storage services provides highly available and secure storage space over the cloud. Here is a link which explains the difference of these two in terms of AWS(CloudFront vs S3).
If your website traffic is moderate and you want to use free CDN, then you may signup for AWS free tier. The free tier gives you 50 GB Data Transfer Out and 2,000,000 HTTP and HTTPS Requests for Amazon CloudFront(AWS CDN) each month for one year. Here's a tutorial for getting started with AWS CloudFront
If you intended to use cloud storage services then also the free AWS tier provides you with 5 GB of space in AWS S3 for 1 year.
Apart from AWS free tier you may also like to checkout free Microsoft Azure or Google Cloud Platform. Levering these free tier resources it's even possible to host your current website on these platforms almost for free given the usage is within free tier limits.
We will launching a Google Campaign for our Website and expecting high number of users visiting our website.
Hence, I did some pre-calculations and figured out that serving images from Cloud servers would be best approach, which are currently being served from dedicated server.
I haven't got any clue on how Google Cloud Storage works or any other service. So can someone please guide me to relevant steps that I should be taking for hosting all our images to Google Cloud Storage and how can I serve them from Europe, and mapping of subdomain.
Currently I am following this Guide
Edit:
Before going for Cloud I compared the purpose of CDN vs Cloud and this what I figured out.
CDN: Used for serving contents from multiple regions: Speed is the purpose
Cloud: Used for serving contents for high bandwidth usage: High Availability is the purpose
And my Main purpose is High Availability, I hope I have gained correct information from dear friend Google.
Are you looking for this: https://developers.google.com/storage/docs/bucketnaming
You need verifying your domain name so it can use a CNAME in Google Cloud Storage
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/gs-discussion/V-nLULNRQLI
After second thought, are you sure you need Google Cloud Storage?
It sounds like you just need a CDN or Amazon S3 stuff.
If memory serves, you need to do the following to use Google Cloud Storage with a custom domain:
verify your own domain names, such as example.com
upload images to Google Cloud Storage, you can use tools such as gsutil etc
serve these images with your own subdomain names such as images.example.com etc
You can serve images from google cloud storage. The nice benefit is: Google will do the serving for you and when you use the images api to create serving_url's you can crop and size the images while serving.
Look at this gist for details.
If you like to use you own domain as part of the image url, you cannot use https!
Serving Static Files
Applications often need to serve static files such as JavaScript, images, and CSS in addition to handling dynamic requests. Apps in the flexible environment can serve static files from a Google Cloud option like Cloud Storage.
https://cloud.google.com/appengine/docs/flexible/nodejs/serving-static-files
I'd like to save some of my site monthly bandwidth allocation and I'm wondering if I can use Flickr PRO or I should rely on Amazon S3 as an hosting service for my web site images. (My Web Application allows users to upload their own pictures and at the moment it's managing around 40GB of data)
I've never used Amazon's services and I like the idea of using Flickr REST Api do dynamically upload images from my webApp.
I like also the idea of having virtually unlimited space to store images on Flickr for only 25$/year but I'm not sure if I can use their service on my web site.
I think that my account can be banned if I use Flickr services to store images (uploaded by users of my website) that are not only for 'personal use'.
What's your experience and would you suggest other services rather than Amazon's S3 or is this the only available option at the moment?
Thanks
edit: Flickr explicitly says 'Don’t use Flickr for commercial purpose', you could always contact them to ask to evaluate your request but it sounds to me like I can't use their services to achieve what I want. S3 looks like the way to go then...
Even though a rough estimate of what I'm going to spend every month is still scaring
5000 visit/day
* 400 img/user (avg 50kB/image)
* 30 days
= ~3TB of traffic
* 0.15$/GB (Amazon S3)
= 429$/month
is there any cheaper place to host my images?
400 images per user seems high? Is that figure from actual stats?
Amazon S3 is great and it just works!
A possible cheaper option is Google. Google docs now supports all file types, so you can load the images up to a Google docs folder, and share the folder for public access. The URL's are kind of long e.g.
http://lh6.ggpht.com/VMLEHAa3kSHEoRr7AchhQ6HEzHVTn1b7Mf-whpxmPlpdrRfPW216UhYdQy3pzIe4f8Q7PKXN79AD4eRqu1obC7I
Add the =s paramter to scale the image, cool! e.g. for 200 pixels wide
http://lh6.ggpht.com/VMLEHAa3kSHEoRr7AchhQ6HEzHVTn1b7Mf-whpxmPlpdrRfPW216UhYdQy3pzIe4f8Q7PKXN79AD4eRqu1obC7I=s200
Google only charge USD5/year for 20GB. There is a full API for uploading docs etc
I love amazon S3. There are so many great code libraries (LitS3) and browser plugins (S3Fox) and upload widgets (Flajaxian) that make it really easy to use.
And you only pay for what you use. I use it a lot and have only ever experienced down time on one occasion.
Nivanix is an s3 competitor. I haven't used them, but they have a bit more functionality (image resizing) etc.
Edit:The link about Nivanix is dead now(2015/07/21), because Nivanix was dead.