Connected Assets vs Binaryless Replication

[veerareddyc1015]

Hi Team,

can anyone please suggest on this?
We are currently utilizing Binaryless Replication for asset transfer between Author and Publish instances in our AEM 6.5 AMS environment. We are evaluating a migration to the Connected Assets feature. What are the primary advantages of Connected Assets over Binaryless Replication in AEM 6.5 AMS, and is this migration recommended?"

Thanks in Advance

Regards

Veera

[VishalKa5]

Hi @veerareddyc1015 ,

Binaryless Replication (your current setup) is designed for Author-Publish replication within a single AEM deployment. It transfers metadata while sharing binaries from a common datastore, optimizing replication performance between instances in the same environment.

Connected Assets is fundamentally different - it's designed for sharing assets from a central DAM instance to multiple remote Sites deployments. It allows separate AEM instances (different deployments) to reference and use assets without duplicating them.

Primary advantages of Connected Assets:

• Centralized asset governance across multiple AEM deployments
• Eliminates asset duplication across separate Sites instances
• Enables distributed authoring with centralized DAM
• Reduces storage costs in multi-deployment architectures

Is migration recommended? No - these are not alternative solutions. They solve different problems:

• Keep Binaryless Replication for your Author-Publish setup
• Only add Connected Assets if you're expanding to multiple separate AEM Sites deployments

For your AEM 6.5 AMS environment with single Author-Publish setup, there's no benefit to replacing Binaryless Replication with Connected Assets. Connected Assets is only relevant if you plan to implement multiple independent AEM Sites instances that need to access a shared DAM.

Thanks,

Vishal

[SantoshSai]

Hi @veerareddyc1015,

A quick summary based on experience with both approaches:

Binaryless Replication (6.5, AMS)

• It’s fast for syncing assets because binaries are not pushed again if they already exist in the datastore.

• But it still relies on classic author -> publish replication agents.

• You still maintain and troubleshoot replication queues, dispatchers, retries, and agent failures.

• Asset usage across sites is limited to the same deployment - no real “remote asset consumption” concept.

Connected Assets (AEM 6.5, AMS)

• Designed for remote asset consumption - publish environments can pull assets directly from a remote DAM (remote Author or Brand Portal).

• No replication agents required; fewer moving parts.

• Assets are fetched on-demand, cached locally on publish, and automatically refreshed when updated on the DAM.

• Good fit when you have multiple sites needing access to a central DAM.

• Better governance: authors manage in one place, sites consume without replicating full assets.

• Less storage footprint on publish instances compared to full replication.

When is migration recommended?
Migration makes sense if:

• You want to centralize DAM assets and reduce duplication across environments.

• You manage multiple publish tiers that shouldn’t store full DAM copies.

• You want to eliminate replication agent maintenance.

• You need brand portal or cross-instance consumption.

When it’s NOT ideal:

• If your sites require assets to be physically present and always local (e.g., heavy personalization, dynamic imaging on publish).

• If your current replication model is simple and not causing pain points.

• If you have very large assets and want guaranteed replication instead of on-demand fetch.

Simple rule of thumb:

• Binaryless Replication = Fast asset sync within a single AEM deployment.

• Connected Assets = Modern architecture for sharing assets across multiple deployments with less operational overhead.

If your long-term goal includes centralizing DAM + reducing publish storage + removing replication complexity, then yes, migration is worth it.