S3 or other static hosts can certainly be the cheapest thing if used efficiently, cheapness is one of the main reasons people use them at all! So it should be mounted, I guess that&#x27;s the easiest way of enumerating tracks and getting metadata (edit: and all the file manager features, duh). But would the traffic also have to go though Ampache? Like this:<p><pre><code>      S3 (music files) -&gt; Ampache server -&gt; client
</code></pre>
Because it would be a lot more efficient to have the option of specifying that files should be streamed directly from another host like this:<p><pre><code>      S3 (music files) ---&gt;(streaming)&gt;--------\
       |                                        \
  (read metadata, manage files)                  `-&gt; client
       |                                         &#x2F;
       |                                        &#x2F;
     Ampache server --&gt;(web interface etc.)&gt;---&#x2F;
</code></pre>
I now realize it might be kind of a PITA to implement this because of Ampache&#x27;s extensive feature set. Still, it would be really cool and an efficient way from a pricing as well as speed point of view. Of course, having a fixed IP and a server in your basement is a also decent solution when it&#x27;s available to you. (hah, definitely not available to me right now)