3 ms·
our traffic levels (as 85% of all sites) are low enough where the experience is significantly better to self-host without involving third party HTTPS connection
by leeoniya 9y ago
our traffic levels (as 85% of all sites) are low enough where the experience is significantly better to self-host without involving third party HTTPS connections or dependencies.
if we had an uptick in traffic, we would use a CDN to host the vids as long as the CDN didnt require that we swallow a 1MB js player for the pleasure of doing so.
- ecnahc515 9y agoA CDN isn't only for helping you handle large amounts of traffic. It also makes sure the content is close to the user so they get a better experience.
- leeoniya 9y agotrue, but the need for a CDN isnt a foregone conclusion. it entirely depends on your traffic. a CDN also exposes your users' privacy via third-party cookies [1]. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14694451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14694451
- TeMPOraL 9y ago> It also makes sure the content is close to the user so they get a better experience. The way most websites fuck that experience up with superfluous JS and media content makes this point moot, IMO. Being able to deliver JS 200ms faster doesn't help when you're serving megabytes of it.
- coldtea 9y agoIt's not about the load on your servers. It's about the CDN being optimized for my (or any other user's) region...
- leeoniya 9y agofor major outlets with a truly global traffic pattern, sure. the vast majority of sites get 90% of their traffic from predictable regions. for instance, 99% of our traffic is from US and Canada.