django & AWS S3 - network/performance cost difference on enabling pre-signed url

Question

Say, I have a django project with static files stored on Amazon S3 with django-storage as a custom storage.

Say, I have a static file called style.css.

By default, AWS_QUERYSTRING_AUTH is set to True, and the generated link will be as such : https://bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/style.css?AWSAccessKeyId=xxxxxx&Signature=xxxx&Expires=1595823548
But if I set AWS_QUERYSTRING_AUTH to False, the generated link will be as such : https://bucket.s3.amazonaws.com/style.css (e.g. without accessId, signature, and expire)
for public file, they said I should set this to False

If I get this correctly, this is what people call a "signed url".

Functionality-wise, both of these 2 options above will work exaclty as the same, despite the longer link on the first option.

My question are: performance-wise, does pre-signed url affect CPU/networking bandwith as much?

If I have a hundreds of public files that can be served without pre-signed url, does my server get the overhead (in terms of CPU and networking) if I insist to serve all of it with presigned url ?

If the files you are serving are public why would you add auth to them? — Iain Shelvington, Jul 27 '20 at 03:34
Yes, I know it sounds not right. But question-wise, does signing the url cost that much overhead? If there is little to no overhead, then why should I ommit the signing process (?). — Rahmat Nazali Salimi, Jul 27 '20 at 03:41
You should omit the signing process because if you don't no one will be able to access your static files — Iain Shelvington, Jul 27 '20 at 03:43

django & AWS S3 - network/performance cost difference on enabling pre-signed url

0 Answers0