5 ms·

I wish I could find it, but I read an article a while ago that showed how CDN-cached stuff usually, well, isn't. At the very least it's not something to rely on

• manigandham 8y ago
  It's cached at the CDN nodes, which means quick delivery to the device. This is much better than serving that file from your origin server, and even if you use a CDN it's unlikely that it'll match the hit rates of the public CDNs. That can make a measurable improvement, and at worse is no slower than hosting it yourself.
  • acdha 8y ago
    Have you benchmarked that? Each host you add has its own overhead thanks to DNS, TLS, etc. and every time I’ve done the tests, that cancels out the benefits entirely for a site which itself uses a CDN. I’ve also tended to see numbers for public CDNs which suggest that things aren’t cached as often as you’d like - maybe if it’s a popular project which hasn’t updated in years but otherwise version spread undercuts hit rates dramatically. My rule of thumb is that public CDNs aren’t a performance move in the HTTP/2 era (i.e. 2016 or later). They may still be convenient, however.