Digitalocean Space for images vs local shared hosting

Posted August 28, 2021 121 views

Actually I’m using a platform (sngine social network), on a shared hosting , that have no option to setup a CDN, it has “only” option to setup an external storage (Digitalocean is present).
My small community is growing up (actually 500 users, with an avarage of 10 simultaneous users) is based overall on pictures (and a few videos..).
I have NO problem space (4% used) but I’m a bit scary for perfomance loading many images at the same time.
So, my question is : could be Digitalocean Space a good and better option in terms of performance compared to a std. share server ? (remember that my platform cannot use CDN at the moment, may be in the future…)

I tried to do some tests, but are not clear to me, depending on how many users are clicking on images at the same time.
Shared server is actually in Netherland, so I could use AMS3 region.

Thanks all !

These answers are provided by our Community. If you find them useful, show some love by clicking the heart. If you run into issues leave a comment, or add your own answer to help others.

Submit an Answer
1 answer


I would personally use an S3 storage like the DigitalOcean Spaces when planning for future scaling.

That way if your static files will not be stored locally on the server itself but they will be on that S3 storage, so if you add more servers to your setup, you will not have to manually sync the images from the initial server to the newly added servers each time.

If you believe that you would not need to scale any time soon, then using the local server storage is also possible.

One thing that I always keep in mind is that if you have a database service like MySQL for example, you need to make sure that you have enough storage at all times, as if the server runs out of disk space this could cause some problems for the SQL service like data corruption and etc.

Hope that this helps!