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.
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 sales@edgecast.com with questions.
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
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.
