Video On Demand: Elemental MediaPackage vs Direct S3 access

Question

Hello,  
  
speaking of Video On Demand (not Live): what are the advantages of using Elemental MediaPackage over accessing directly video assets on S3 storage?  
  
I mean, take the following scenario: an m3u8 video asset is prepared and uploaded on S3. What are the pros to ingest this asset in Elemental MediaPackage when I can access it directly through S3.  
  
In both cases I can leverage on CloudFront to deploy a CDN.  
  
I'm definitely missing something. Hope someone will help me to better understand the pros and cons of both solutions mentioned here.  
  
Thanks.

Marco Klobas · Answer

Hi bingaws,  
  
thanks for your reply. I've a clearer understanding now.  
  
I'll consider MediaStore as a more suitable alternative to S3 for video assets.  
  
Bye.

AWS-User-8535471 · Answer

In your case, MediaPackage is not needed since packaging is already done.   
However, please keep in mind that s3 was not designed for video streaming. You might want to consider using MediaStore. It is built on top of S3 with additional caching layer that is optimized for media streaming. Your users can get low latency read performance optimized for media-specific access patterns.  
https://aws.amazon.com/mediastore/features/

Video On Demand: Elemental MediaPackage vs Direct S3 access

Relevant content