重新上传到 EdgeCast 或 Amazon S3？
我正在开发一个项目，计划使用 EdgeCast 来存储数据。我很担心，因为客户端想先将图像上传到我们的服务器，然后使用curl将其上传到EdgeCast。在这种情况下，我们的服务器将“代理”请求，使上传所需的时间加倍。
你有什么建议？直接上传有风险吗？
PS，我提到 S3 的原因是因为它与 EdgeCast 相似。因此我认为同样的原则也适用。
I am working on a project in which we are planning to use EdgeCast to store our data. I am concerned about it, because the client wants to upload the image to our server first, and then use curl to upload it to EdgeCast. In this case our servers will be "proxying" the request, doubling the time needed for uploads.
What would you suggest? And is direct uploading risky?
PS the reason I mentioned S3 is because of its similarity to EdgeCast. Hence I assume the same principle will apply.
如果你对这篇内容有疑问，欢迎到本站社区发帖提问 参与讨论，获取更多帮助，或者扫码二维码加入 Web 技术交流群。
绑定邮箱获取回复消息
由于您还没有绑定你的真实邮箱，如果其他用户或者作者回复了您的评论，将不能在第一时间通知您！
发布评论
评论（3）
是的 - 马丁是对的 - 当让用户直接访问存储以拥有代理时通常是个好主意。 EdgeCast 支持 rsync，它将自动同步服务器和 EdgeCast 存储帐户中的内容。或者，您可以使用我们网络的“客户来源”反向代理功能，根据公众的请求自动从您的服务器提取内容。如有疑问，请随时通过 [email protected] 与我们联系。
Yep - Martin's right - usually a good idea when letting users have direct access to storage to have a proxy. EdgeCast supports rsync which will automatically sync content from your server and the EdgeCast storage account. Or you can use our "customer origin" reverse proxy feature for our network to pull content automatically from your servers as its requested by the public. Feel free to contact us at [email protected] with questions.
将服务器置于最终用户和存储之间可能是一个好主意。每当我让用户通过 FTP 或 SSH 直接访问存储位置时，它往往会变得非常混乱。您可以上传可通过网络访问的文件的地方，可用于各种用途。
通过您的服务器，您可以将上传的文件组织成某种合理的结构。例如，每个日期一个文件夹，也许还对文件本身强制执行一些严格的命名，以避免 URL 编码问题等。
Having your server in between the end user and the storage, is probably a good idea. Whenever I let users direct access to storage places, with FTP or SSH, it tends to get really messy. A place where you can upload files, that get accessible from the web, is used for all sorts of things.
Having your server in between you can organise the files uploaded into some rational structure. A folder per date for instance, and perhaps also enforce some strict naming of the files themselves, avoiding URL encoding problems etc.
没有理由担心 Edgecast。在我看来，它总是尽最大努力以最好的方式为客户提供服务，以便客户尽可能快地拥有他们的网站，同时也是安全和优化的。 Edgecasr 与 Amazon 的整体比较请参见 http://jodihost.com/2014_edgecast_vs_amazon.php
There is no reason to be concerned about Edgecast. On my opinion, it always makes its best to serve its customers the best way so that the customers have their websites as fast as it's possible and also secured and well-optimized. The whole comparison of Edgecasr vs Amazon look at http://jodihost.com/2014_edgecast_vs_amazon.php