Great idea (we also run ours cross-region/cross-datacenter for redundancy), but you are basically losing the scale advantages of S3 with the Apache server in the critical path (I believe Apache or nginx can serve static file requests basically as quickly as 302s, though I haven't run the benchmarks myself).
You can eliminate the LB, Apache server, and redirect by just using DNS CNAMEs if you change your "common path" URL (eg. the one in your email) to be http://www.rockthepost.com (you still need the LB & webserver for http://rockthepost.com since you can't reasonably CNAME root records). Then on failure, just point the DNS for www to your S3 site.
Great idea (we also run ours cross-region/cross-datacenter for redundancy), but you are basically losing the scale advantages of S3 with the Apache server in the critical path (I believe Apache or nginx can serve static file requests basically as quickly as 302s, though I haven't run the benchmarks myself).
You can eliminate the LB, Apache server, and redirect by just using DNS CNAMEs if you change your "common path" URL (eg. the one in your email) to be http://www.rockthepost.com (you still need the LB & webserver for http://rockthepost.com since you can't reasonably CNAME root records). Then on failure, just point the DNS for www to your S3 site.