Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Amazon S3 vs Memcached: What are the differences?
Amazon S3 and Memcached are both popular tools used in web development, but they have key differences that set them apart. Here are the main differences between Amazon S3 and Memcached:
Scalability: Amazon S3 is a highly scalable storage service that allows for infinite storage capacity. It can handle large amounts of data and is designed to handle high traffic loads. On the other hand, Memcached is an in-memory caching system that is primarily used for speeding up database-driven websites. While it can also handle a significant amount of data, its scalability is limited by the available memory on the server it is running on.
Data Persistence: Amazon S3 is a fully durable storage service, meaning that once data is written to S3, it is highly resilient and durable even in the event of hardware failures. It provides automatic backup and replication mechanisms to ensure data durability. In contrast, Memcached is an in-memory caching system and does not provide built-in mechanisms for data persistence. If the server running Memcached were to fail, the cached data would be lost.
Data Access: Amazon S3 provides RESTful APIs to access and manipulate data stored in it. This makes it easy to integrate with various applications and services. Also, S3 can be accessed from anywhere with an internet connection. On the other hand, Memcached does not provide a RESTful interface. Instead, it provides a simple key-value interface based on the Memcached protocol. It is typically accessed locally or within a network, making it more suited for caching data within a single application or server.
Data Retrieval Speed: Amazon S3 is optimized for storing and retrieving large files and can handle a high throughput of data requests. However, it may have higher latency compared to Memcached when it comes to retrieving small, frequently accessed data, as S3 has to perform disk operations to retrieve the data. In contrast, Memcached is an in-memory cache and can provide very low latency for retrieving frequently accessed data, making it ideal for improving website performance.
Cost Model: Amazon S3 follows a pay-as-you-go pricing model, where users are charged for the amount of data stored and the bandwidth used for data transfers. This allows for flexibility and cost control based on actual usage. On the other hand, Memcached is an open-source software and does not have any direct costs associated with it. However, the cost of deploying and maintaining the servers running Memcached needs to be considered.
Use Cases: Amazon S3 is commonly used for storing and serving static files, hosting websites, backup and restore, and large-scale data analytics. It is preferred for scenarios that require durability, availability, scalability, and high throughput. Memcached, on the other hand, is primarily used for caching frequently accessed data to improve website performance. It is suited for scenarios where low-latency data access is critical, such as session management, database query caching, and dynamic content generation.
In summary, Amazon S3 is a highly scalable and durable storage service optimized for large-scale data storage and retrieval, while Memcached is an in-memory caching system focused on improving website performance by caching frequently accessed data. The choice between the two depends on the specific use case and requirements of the application or website.
Hello! I have a mobile app with nearly 100k MAU, and I want to add a cloud file storage service to my app.
My app will allow users to store their image, video, and audio files and retrieve them to their device when necessary.
I have already decided to use PHP & Laravel as my backend, and I use Contabo VPS. Now, I need an object storage service for my app, and my options are:
Amazon S3 : It sounds to me like the best option but the most expensive. Closest to my users (MENA Region) for other services, I will have to go to Europe. Not sure how important this is?
DigitalOcean Spaces : Seems like my best option for price/service, but I am still not sure
Wasabi: the best price (6 USD/MONTH/TB) and free bandwidth, but I am not sure if it fits my needs as I want to allow my users to preview audio and video files. They don't recommend their service for streaming videos.
Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage: Good price but not sure about them.
There is also the self-hosted s3 compatible option, but I am not sure about that.
Any thoughts will be helpful. Also, if you think I should post in a different sub, please tell me.
If pricing is the issue i'd suggest you use digital ocean, but if its not use amazon was digital oceans API is s3 compatible
Hello Mohammad, I am using : Cloudways >> AWS >> Bahrain for last 2 years. This is best I consider out of my 10 year research on Laravel hosting.
Minio is a free and open source object storage system. It can be self-hosted and is S3 compatible. During the early stage it would save cost and allow us to move to a different object storage when we scale up. It is also fast and easy to set up. This is very useful during development since it can be run on localhost.
We offer our customer HIPAA compliant storage. After analyzing the market, we decided to go with Google Storage. The Nodejs API is ok, still not ES6 and can be very confusing to use. For each new customer, we created a different bucket so they can have individual data and not have to worry about data loss. After 1000+ customers we started seeing many problems with the creation of new buckets, with saving or retrieving a new file. Many false positive: the Promise returned ok, but in reality, it failed.
That's why we switched to S3 that just works.
Pros of Amazon S3
- Reliable590
- Scalable492
- Cheap456
- Simple & easy329
- Many sdks83
- Logical30
- Easy Setup13
- REST API11
- 1000+ POPs11
- Secure6
- Easy4
- Plug and play4
- Web UI for uploading files3
- Faster on response2
- Flexible2
- GDPR ready2
- Easy to use1
- Plug-gable1
- Easy integration with CloudFront1
Pros of Memcached
- Fast object cache139
- High-performance129
- Stable91
- Mature65
- Distributed caching system33
- Improved response time and throughput11
- Great for caching HTML3
- Putta2
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Amazon S3
- Permissions take some time to get right7
- Requires a credit card6
- Takes time/work to organize buckets & folders properly6
- Complex to set up3
Cons of Memcached
- Only caches simple types2