Well, to be fair, S3 can give you bandwidth, as long as you request directly from S3. So if you have a situation where you know you can pregenerate all tiles, for example stored in a TMS or Gmaps structure on S3, then you can just have your client request tiles directly - S3 supplies tiles and bandwidth, and TileCache just pre-renders the tiles for you. Or perhaps you could have TileCache (on a non-ec2 server) check local tile metadata (not currently supported) and redirect to S3 if it's there (and put it there if it's not). But anyway, assuming you can pregenerate all tiles, the first option might make lots of sense...<div>
<br></div><div> -Josh<br><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:21 PM, Attila Csipa <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:plists@prometheus.org.yu">plists@prometheus.org.yu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">On Thursday 13 November 2008 16:00:51 Steven M. Ottens wrote:<br>
> usage of the server running TileCache. My reason to use S3 is because<br>
> we run out of bandwidth at our setup and we assume Amazon has<br>
> slightly more available :)<br>
<br>
</div>I think there is a misconception here... S3 gives you storage space, not<br>
bandwidth. What you want sounds more like multiple EC2 instances that serve<br>
static content fetched from S3 (and that would be close to a setup that I<br>
actually use at the moment :)<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">_______________________________________________<br>
Tilecache mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Tilecache@openlayers.org">Tilecache@openlayers.org</a><br>
<a href="http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/tilecache" target="_blank">http://openlayers.org/mailman/listinfo/tilecache</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>