3 ms·
>You could store files in a Backblaze B2 bucket and serve them via Cloudflare with zero bandwidth fees. From Cloudflare's TOS [0]: >2.8 Limitation on Non-HTML
by desdiv 8y ago
>You could store files in a Backblaze B2 bucket and serve them via Cloudflare with zero bandwidth fees.
From Cloudflare's TOS [0]:
>2.8 Limitation on Non-HTML Caching
>The Service is offered primarily as a platform to cache and serve web pages and websites. Unless explicitly included as a part of a Paid Service purchased by you, you agree to use the Service solely for the purpose of serving web pages as viewed through a web browser or other application and the Hypertext Markup Language (HTML) protocol or other equivalent technology. Use of the Service for the storage or caching of video (unless purchased separately as a Paid Service) or a disproportionate percentage of pictures, audio files, or other non-HTML content, is prohibited.
Of course Cloudflare offers commercial plans that feature video CDN, but it will cost you and it will cost you similarly to other video CDN providers.
[0] https://www.cloudflare.com/terms/ https://www.cloudflare.com/terms/
- speeq 8y agoYeah, I meant zero egress fees from B2. It's a shame that Cloudflare isn't more transparent about their bandwidth limits but my guess is that traffic would still be cheaper than from Amazon. Maybe someone from their team could weigh in ..
- judge2020 8y agoAll this means is that your main website, where these files are embedded/served from, also needs to be on Cloudflare (and proxied).
- dlhavema 8y agoI'm not sure that would follow > disproportionate percentage of pictures, audio files, or other non-HTML content, is prohibited. If your video sharing app has any decent usage your ratios are gonna get in their red zone pretty quick...
- sk5t 8y agoI think you have a very different idea of what constitutes "mainly HTML."
- ficklepickle 8y agoBase64 encode the video and embed it in the HTML? E: typo