Should I use Amazon S3?
jrockway: S3 does look pretty expensive for this case.  In general, I think S3 is best for storing files that aren't retrieved often.  For hosting a download, there are better options.I have an BingoDisk account that supposedly provides unlimited transfer.  If you are just uploading and downloading stuff, it sounds like BingoDisk is ideal. (http://www.bingodisk.com/)  I use it for hosting big files, like a 600M SQLite database with information about CPAN modules.  It gets quite a few downloads, and nobody has ever told me I'm abusing the service.(FWIW, I used to use BingoDisk for backups, but Linux's WebDAV support does not work well for backups -- way too much caching going on.  S3 turned out to be infinitely more reliable.  I don't think this has anything to do with BingoDisk, though, but rather how davfs2 is implemented.  This may or may not be a problem for your use case.)If you don't mind offloading the cost to your users, though, S3 is probably the way to go.  I think Amazon will even bill your users for you now.