|
Title: translation needed // size limitation now gone? Post by: maelcum on June 05, 2007, 09:14:22 AM Hi,
can somebody interpret the following sentence in some easy-english for me, please? Sometimes, my command of english just fails me utterly... :-[ Code: Customers who use vanity domains can now make signed HTTP requests against them. And: Does s3sync.rb has to be changed to take advantage of the "new" (revised) size limitation? Not that I'm able to use that limit to its full capacity with my measly 512 Kbit upstream... :-\ ***************************************************************** AMAZON S3: VIRTUAL HOSTED BUCKETS AND OBJECT SIZE IMPROVEMENTS ***************************************************************** The Amazon S3 team is excited to launch a significant enhancement to our virtual hosted buckets feature (also known as vanity domains). Customers who use vanity domains can now make signed HTTP requests against them. Please refer to the updated Amazon S3 documentation for details. We've released updated code samples for this feature which are available in the Resource Center. The team has also successfully deployed a fix that removes the 2-4 GB limitation on object sizes. All our customers should now be able to upload, store and transfer objects that are up to 5 GB in size, as documented in the Release Notes. Title: Re: translation needed // size limitation now gone? Post by: ferrix on June 05, 2007, 10:52:01 AM I think it means that if you use a domain with a CNAME pointing to s3.amazonaws.com then request signing works. I haven't personally tested anything like that.
s3sync tools don't care about size of things, so the answer to the second thing is "no". Title: Re: translation needed // size limitation now gone? Post by: maelcum on June 05, 2007, 01:04:48 PM Code: CNAME pointing to s3.amazonaws.com then request signing works Okay. Thanks. Now it makes sense.:) |