AUTHOR: http://aws.typepad.com/aws/2012/05/amazon-cloudfront-support-for-dynamic-content.html LINK!

Recent AWS Customer Success Stories & Videos

More AWS Customer Success Stories...

« AWS 포탈 - 한국어 컨텐츠 추가 | Main | AWS Week in Review - May 7, 2012 »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c534853ef0167666fbcc1970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Amazon CloudFront - Support for Dynamic Content:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Jon Verhelst

Good to see that CloudFront is getting some extra goodies.

Although I must say I'm a little disappointed that we are still lacking proper (dynamic) gzip support for S3 backed storages.

GabrieleMittica

Great feature! This is a fantastic news!

Geoffrey Plitt

That is straight-up awesome. Good stuff, guys.

Saku Mättö

Hi and this all sounds great! I'm still confused as a webmaster for a Wordpress site as to whether or not I can now run my WP site on Cloudfront. Is there more where I can read about this?
Thanks,
Saku

Silentlennie

What do I think ? I think there is still one thing that is preventing me from being a customer.

If only CloudFront DNS latency wasn't so high because they use to many CNAMEs and no Anycast for the top domain.

Please DO contact me for more details, I would love to be a CloudFront customer if this is solved.

Account Deleted

You've just made me happy!

Johann

I'd be interested in hearing what increasing initcwnd did for CloudFront. I've tried this before and the gains weren't exactly clear http://twitter.com/#!/johannburkard/status/169754429069852672/photo/1/large But maybe you see real gains with your traffic?

Renat Zubairov

Hi,

That's a great feature. We are already using CloudFront with custom origin for serving dynamically generated images (see our blog [1]) however one problem we didn't had a solution up to now is the image size. For example if image URL looks like this:

http://img.elastic.io/img/2519313


We want to add a sizing information like this

http://img.elastic.io/img/2519313?width=100

However up to now CloudFront was ignoring the query parameters, and it's really nice addition that it will support it now.

Thanks Allot!

Links:

[1] http://blog.elastic.io/post/22773181715/how-we-use-amazon-cloudfront-for-dynamically-generated

Micah Nolte

These are great additions, and Cloudfront has already been a high-quality service.

The main deal-breaker is how you charge for bandwidth between the origin and all of the edge locations, essentially charging twice for each piece of unique content. With these changes to make them dynamic, that means the bandwidth bill will be twice what it would be if they were serving that same file directly from S3 or EC2, assuming they were using a query string with a time stamp, or something similar.

Also, on the bill, this cost is hidden inside of the misleading name "AWS Data Transfer (excluding Amazon CloudFront)."

Are there any changes to the pricing model for transferring data to the edge locations?

Alex Smithq

This looks awesome. One quick question though...in theory, this should speed up even dynamic PHP content with no static content at all? Our application is centered around lots of AJAX calls to a PHP script which returns data from our database (RDS). Would we benefit from using CloudFront with the PHP script or would there be a minimal speed difference because it's not cached and has to get content from the origin (EC2 ELB) every time?

Thanks!

Bob Van Zant

This is pretty awesome, but where's IPv6 support? Even Akamai has that.

urbanjunkie

Does this mean that 'versioning' of files via the querystring now works?

Here's the scenario have a file called stylesheet.css and access it via stylesheet.css?ver=2012051401. If I update stylesheet.css, I change the "ver" parameter to 2012151402 to force CF to 'refresh' the file without needing to invalidate it (invalidations seem to be woefully unsupported without using the API).

Is my understanding correct?

Rustin

This is the right step forward for Amazon and it's customers using AWS CloudFront; though not exciting or new to advanced customers and a benefit that should have been offered years ago as technology and software has existed prior to AWS.

Great for marketing I suppose, to teach decision makers that don't truly understand technology or businesses they run. Pinch me when decided to offer edge computing and storage.

Are there still many dial-up users left; a modem. Go USR! At least they made a movie.

Scott McArthur

Hello,
Looks good, but what support is there for https (SSL). I presume that there is still no way to provide our own SSL certificate to CloudFront, so no way to benefit secure applications?
Cheers,
Scott

Darren

Does this also work with SSL (e.g.: https://)?

Devon Bleak

Awesome updates :-)

@Johann - TCP window size/scaling only governs incoming data to the system in question. In this case it's allowing the origin (or end-user, in the case of a large request payload) to send ~64MB of data to CF all at once rather than the previous value of ~256kb. Receiving data faster from the origin means CF can better saturate the link to the end-user for stuff that's not already in its cache, but the window size to the end-user is still governed by their TCP stack settings which is why you were probably not seeing much of an improvement in your tests.

@Alex Smithq - You should see a drop in overall load times for your use case due to the persistent origin connections - your users wouldn't be having to wait on a lengthy three-way handshake back to your origin, instead making a much faster three-way handshake to CF's closest cache. For users that are very remote from your origin but very close to a CF cache you can expect to see upwards of .5s shaved off overall request time (assuming the CF cache node in question already has a persistent connection open to your origin). For smaller dynamic payloads that generally fit within the initial tcp window for the connection you're not likely to see much of an improvement beyond that. You could achieve similar results using HTTP keep-alives between your origin and end-users, but this has the advantages of also caching your static content, giving you the option of setting/tuning short non-zero TTLs on things that are dynamic but don't need to be real-time, and being able to keep way fewer idle connections open to your origin.

Stephen

These are great additions. Keep up the great work!

Still, the largest want that I've had and seen in the forums is a solution to the S3 domain apex (aka, naked domain, root domain) issue. Having A record support for S3 buckets & CloudFront distros would be huge. Until then, we are forced to use hacky work arounds like this:

http://blog.dnsimple.com/how-the-alias-virtual-record-works/

Thanks again,
smm

Per Osbeck

Nice!

How about supporting POST as well?

Frank

Million Dollar Question: can SSL sites use this dynamic content delivery setup?

Jose R. Revuelta

You rock!!! This is the kind of functionality that add real value!

Kumar D

Is SSL (https) supported?

Johann

@Devon thank you for the explanation.

Tej Kiran

Hi,
I am one of the developer of Bucket Explorer. I am excited to announce that Bucket Explorer new version is supporting CloudFront Dynamic Content feature. Try Its 30days trial version with full featured.

Dynamic Content (Steps and Images) - http://www.bucketexplorer.com/documentation/cloudfront--how-to-create-distribution-for-dynamic-content-delivery.html

Thanks

Tej Kiran
www.bucketexplorer.com

John Mark Mitchell

As of me writing this (May 23 2012), SSL is supported via the CloudFront distribution URL only. Meaning, you cannot CNAME the SSL URL. Concretely, you can reference an item via SSL as:

https://.cloudfront.net/picture.jpg

but not:

https://cdn.mydomain.com/picture.jpg

where cdn.mydomain.com is a CNAME to .cloudfront.net. At present you will get SSL errors.

This means you are unable to use your domain name or SSL cert. This can cause problems with crossdomain policies in the browser as well as add undo complexity to the maintenance of a site.

I have been assured by AWS staff that HTTPS support for distribution CNAMEs is on their feature list but that it needs community support for prioritization. To help in this effort please fill out the CloudFront survey (see below) and note this feature request. AWS staff use data gathered from the survey for planning and prioritizing the CloudFront roadmap.

Be sure to note that HTTPS CNAME support is needed when you take the CloudFront Survey: http://aws.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_9yvAN5PK8abJIFK

Christiaan Conover

This is fantastic!

I'd love to use this for handling traffic to my Wordpress site. There are only two things missing to prevent that.

1. Support for POST requests to handle authentication, publishing, etc.
2. Ability for CloudFront to be accessed at domain root with a valid A record instead of a subdomain (e.g. example.com instead of www.example.com)

However, this is a phenomenal feature for making my static asset serving more efficient.

Garret

Now that you have support for query parameters, why not allow query parameters on the default root object?

If you attempt to use a query parameter the UI complains saying: "Must contain only valid URL characters", which is an incorrect error message because ?, =, and & are perfectly valid URL characters.

Soan

I am looking at integrating the asp.net BlogEngine application with Cloudfront.
I think i have read a lot about it till now and good to go ahead with it.

One doubt that i wanted to clarify is whether the cloudfront work fine with dynamix AJAX content that we have on site? I have read that it does not yet support POST http calls and hence will return 403 forbidden errors for POST based AJAX calls.
Has anybody tried this or has any information to share?

Niels Tindbæk


This is awesome, cant wait to get started!

Many people are asking about SSL... does anyone have any insight on that?
If I can live with the AWS domain, i'm fine right? HTTPS is only an issue when CNAMEing?

How about private dynamic content? Can dynamic content be "hidden" behind signed time limited URLs?

Soan

I think naked domain mapping is one of the biggest request that i also have.
I have a website hosted on a hosting server and want to use the dynamic whole website caching with Cloudfront.
The images and other static content is already on cloudfront but i am unable a way to point my naked domain to cloudfront cache.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Featured Events

The AWS Report


Brought to You By

Jeff Barr (@jeffbarr):



Jinesh Varia (@jinman):


Email Subscription

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

April 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30