4 ms·

CDN/cloud download performance comparison (26 providers)

36 points by timf 17y ago

kierank 17y ago
Limelight's performance was very surprising. The availability of PAYG Akamai from VPS.NET was also interesting.
- andrewvc 17y ago
  Makes me glad I didn't go with limelight as a CDN, they're also damn expensive compared to the competition (at least last year when I was getting quotes).
modoc 17y ago
Good info, however CacheFly plans seem to top out at 1,200 GB/month (unless you want to pay overages), this seems really low. If you're running a site where you really need a super fast CDN, it seems like you could burn through 1,200 GB very quickly. At SoftLayer I get 2 TB/mo per server, so I have some sites that have 30+ TB/mo transfer allotted, and most of them push way more than 1,200 GB each month. Is there really a good use case for a CDN with such low capacity?
- andrewvc 17y ago
  I was recently looking at CDNs, and the thing about CacheFly that I found unsettling was that their admin interface looks like it was cobbled together by an engineer, not a designer, around 5 years ago (which may be confirmed by the 2005 copyright notice on it). While that's not what their core competency is, it was just too unsettling to commit to a provider that can't provide a professional interface to their clients. See for yourself: https://www.cachefly.com/admin/ https://www.cachefly.com/admin/ . The pages inside the admin area look even worse.
  - andrewvc 17y ago
    I'm not sure why I got down voted for this. How can you expect a provider to perform their core mission well if they can't even get the basics right?
    - mahmud 17y ago
      EveryDNS has the most atrocious interface, but the best service out there. Anecdote for anecdote :-)
    - ableal 17y ago
      Some professional tools are downright ugly. Pretty is more important in the consumer space. To tell the truth, in some cases, if you make it too pretty, the customer may suspect he's being sold consumer-grade crap ... (I didn't downvote you, btw.)
      - andrewvc 17y ago
        I agree with you in general, but that only works when you can objectively analyze a tool before buying / committing to it. The CDN market is tough because things like reliability and service can be impossible to measure till the shit goes down. The problem with providers in the CDN (and hosting) space is they all sell you the same line of BS. We've got the fastest hardware the most reliability, etc. They all have tests that show that they're the fastest in some way, and they'll always tell you that their caching algorithm is more than generous and perfect for you. They may even tell you that their competitors are overselling or cutting corners. You'll have no way to verify much of this really. Basically, what I look for, after I'm sure the essential features are present, is proof that a company is run by responsible smart people with a commitment to their customers. There's really no good way to do this, companies can seem fine when they're trying to get you to sign, then turn into shit afterwards, but I do the best I can with the hints available. That said, the sales guy and sales-engineer I spoke to at CacheFly seemed smart and professional. Their network sounded like it was reasonably constructed. With the absurdness of their admin area, and their lack of larger clients, I just didn't feel like I was going with a first class operation. I could've forgiven one of those two, but put together, that was disconcerting.
- kierank 17y ago
  Good info, however CacheFly plans seem to top out at 1,200 GB/month (unless you want to pay overages), this seems really low. That's because if you want more than 1200GB it's not unreasonable to have a tailor-made quote. (e.g. with geographical weighted pricing)
  - moe 17y ago
    Perhaps also have a look at SimpleCDN. Their pricing looks fair and no need to mess with tailor-made quotes over 3 digit amounts...
jeff18 17y ago
These tables are just begging for a third-column: price. It's cool to know how these stack up to each other, but in order to actually get any utility from the article I'd need to go to 26 providers and see their pricing. I would also like to see latency, which for many applications is much more important than raw throughput.
- _delirium 17y ago
  It's somewhat hard to compare price in a column, though, because they have totally different pricing models. Some charge monthly fees for VPS slices depending on their size; others charge by the hour, also dependent on the size; some flat-price bandwidth up to some level while others charge for all bandwidth by the GB; etc.
lambda 17y ago
Would be nice if they tested latency as well as bandwidth. Latency on small requests can be quite important for hosting performance as well.
- dminor 17y ago
  Latency in a CDN can also vary by how often something is accessed - frequently accessed resources get cached closer to the edge - so it's really hard to do a good CDN comparison through simple testing.
  - lambda 17y ago
    Well, if they are testing files that are only ever downloaded as part of the test, then all of the CDNs will be on equal footing as far as caching goes (assuming that they randomize the order that CDNs are tested in to try to eliminate biases due to some people quitting before the test is over). Part of what you would be trying to measure is how well the caching infrastructure and strategies actually effect the latency seen by end users. If one CDN keeps things cached on the edge longer, and one aggressively evicts things, that will impact latency which is exactly what you would want to be measuring.
moe 17y ago
Why does someone go to these lengths and then only measures the least interesting metric?! Nobody cares about absolute throughput, unless your business happens to be a download service. What matters is latency (above all things) and streaming performance.
petercooper 17y ago
The only major CDN we were unable to test is Akamai. They didn't test NetDNA either. They're number #5 for "content delivery network" and back up sites like mine (not famous, admittedly :-)), CopyBlogger and Uservoice. They've worked great for me.

36 points by timf 17y ago

kierank 17y ago

Limelight's performance was very surprising. The availability of PAYG Akamai from VPS.NET was also interesting.

andrewvc 17y ago
Makes me glad I didn't go with limelight as a CDN, they're also damn expensive compared to the competition (at least last year when I was getting quotes).

modoc 17y ago

Good info, however CacheFly plans seem to top out at 1,200 GB/month (unless you want to pay overages), this seems really low. If you're running a site where you really need a super fast CDN, it seems like you could burn through 1,200 GB very quickly. At SoftLayer I get 2 TB/mo per server, so I have some sites that have 30+ TB/mo transfer allotted, and most of them push way more than 1,200 GB each month. Is there really a good use case for a CDN with such low capacity?

andrewvc 17y ago
I was recently looking at CDNs, and the thing about CacheFly that I found unsettling was that their admin interface looks like it was cobbled together by an engineer, not a designer, around 5 years ago (which may be confirmed by the 2005 copyright notice on it). While that's not what their core competency is, it was just too unsettling to commit to a provider that can't provide a professional interface to their clients. See for yourself: https://www.cachefly.com/admin/ https://www.cachefly.com/admin/ . The pages inside the admin area look even worse.
- andrewvc 17y ago
  I'm not sure why I got down voted for this. How can you expect a provider to perform their core mission well if they can't even get the basics right?
  - mahmud 17y ago
    EveryDNS has the most atrocious interface, but the best service out there. Anecdote for anecdote :-)
  - ableal 17y ago
    Some professional tools are downright ugly. Pretty is more important in the consumer space. To tell the truth, in some cases, if you make it too pretty, the customer may suspect he's being sold consumer-grade crap ... (I didn't downvote you, btw.)
    - andrewvc 17y ago
      I agree with you in general, but that only works when you can objectively analyze a tool before buying / committing to it. The CDN market is tough because things like reliability and service can be impossible to measure till the shit goes down. The problem with providers in the CDN (and hosting) space is they all sell you the same line of BS. We've got the fastest hardware the most reliability, etc. They all have tests that show that they're the fastest in some way, and they'll always tell you that their caching algorithm is more than generous and perfect for you. They may even tell you that their competitors are overselling or cutting corners. You'll have no way to verify much of this really. Basically, what I look for, after I'm sure the essential features are present, is proof that a company is run by responsible smart people with a commitment to their customers. There's really no good way to do this, companies can seem fine when they're trying to get you to sign, then turn into shit afterwards, but I do the best I can with the hints available. That said, the sales guy and sales-engineer I spoke to at CacheFly seemed smart and professional. Their network sounded like it was reasonably constructed. With the absurdness of their admin area, and their lack of larger clients, I just didn't feel like I was going with a first class operation. I could've forgiven one of those two, but put together, that was disconcerting.
kierank 17y ago
Good info, however CacheFly plans seem to top out at 1,200 GB/month (unless you want to pay overages), this seems really low. That's because if you want more than 1200GB it's not unreasonable to have a tailor-made quote. (e.g. with geographical weighted pricing)
- moe 17y ago
  Perhaps also have a look at SimpleCDN. Their pricing looks fair and no need to mess with tailor-made quotes over 3 digit amounts...

jeff18 17y ago

These tables are just begging for a third-column: price. It's cool to know how these stack up to each other, but in order to actually get any utility from the article I'd need to go to 26 providers and see their pricing. I would also like to see latency, which for many applications is much more important than raw throughput.

_delirium 17y ago
It's somewhat hard to compare price in a column, though, because they have totally different pricing models. Some charge monthly fees for VPS slices depending on their size; others charge by the hour, also dependent on the size; some flat-price bandwidth up to some level while others charge for all bandwidth by the GB; etc.

lambda 17y ago

Would be nice if they tested latency as well as bandwidth. Latency on small requests can be quite important for hosting performance as well.

dminor 17y ago
Latency in a CDN can also vary by how often something is accessed - frequently accessed resources get cached closer to the edge - so it's really hard to do a good CDN comparison through simple testing.
- lambda 17y ago
  Well, if they are testing files that are only ever downloaded as part of the test, then all of the CDNs will be on equal footing as far as caching goes (assuming that they randomize the order that CDNs are tested in to try to eliminate biases due to some people quitting before the test is over). Part of what you would be trying to measure is how well the caching infrastructure and strategies actually effect the latency seen by end users. If one CDN keeps things cached on the edge longer, and one aggressively evicts things, that will impact latency which is exactly what you would want to be measuring.

moe 17y ago

Why does someone go to these lengths and then only measures the least interesting metric?! Nobody cares about absolute throughput, unless your business happens to be a download service. What matters is latency (above all things) and streaming performance.

petercooper 17y ago

The only major CDN we were unable to test is Akamai. They didn't test NetDNA either. They're number #5 for "content delivery network" and back up sites like mine (not famous, admittedly :-)), CopyBlogger and Uservoice. They've worked great for me.