4 ms·
There is also very little benefit to putting pages on a CDN. CDNs are beneficial for images and static asset files because pages often have dozens of those so
by saas_co_de 8y ago
There is also very little benefit to putting pages on a CDN.
CDNs are beneficial for images and static asset files because pages often have dozens of those so the small speed up of going through a CDN is multiplied many times over.
The difference yielded by moving a single file (the primary page) to CDN is unlikely to make any measurable benefit overall unless you specifically run a site with a very geographically distributed user base.
Even for sites with a NA/European user base you can host in either US or Europe and it makes no difference. The latency is not significant compared to other performance issues.
- staplers 8y agoBlock 3rd party scripts by default and its amazing how many pages will simply not load at all. CDNs will eventually exert their power if this practice keeps growing. I imagine data mining for CDNs is very lucrative given they interface customer AND business.
- kingsleyokei 8y agoSince you use the phrase "by default" when you say they block 3rd party scripts, I'm assuming you are aware that the weakness can be overcome by simply turning-off that feature from withing the CDN Provider's Web Interface. At least I know Cloudflare allows that.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- staplers 8y agothey block 3rd party scripts "They" who? I am blocking 3rd party scripts with uBlock..
- gamegod 8y agoAnd HTTP/2 further reduces the benefit of a CDN for small assets (vs. no CDN), since requests are asynchronous and multiplexed, giving you better performance.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- dxhdr 8y ago> There is also very little benefit to putting pages on a CDN. Well, you can often pay much less for bandwidth than alternate solutions.