4 ms·
If you've got a site with decent levels of traffic host libraries yourself rather than use a JS CDN. Retrieving critical content from a 3rd-party CDN has a num
by youngtaff 7y ago
If you've got a site with decent levels of traffic host libraries yourself rather than use a JS CDN.
Retrieving critical content from a 3rd-party CDN has a number of issues:
- New TCP connection has to be created with added cost of TLS negotiation and it's own slow-start phase
- If you're using HTTP/2 then prioritisation only occurs over a single connection so it can't be prioritised against other content
- anderspitman 7y agoThere are tradeoffs either way. For popular modules it might already be in your browser cache if another app used the module recently. Plus being a CDN it's probably being served by a machine closer to the user. And if your whole site is running of a CDN then you're relying on a 3rd party anyway. Benchmark for your users.
- youngtaff 7y agoBased on https://andydavies.me/blog/2018/09/06/safari-caching-and-3rd-party-resources/ https://andydavies.me/blog/2018/09/06/safari-caching-and-3rd... it seems highly unlikely that a popular module will be in the cache - Safari double keys it's cache to prevent 3rd-parties tracking across sites - Usage of common libraries is just too low for their to be a critical mass A whole site running on a CDN still involves only one connection, will make use of the throughput growing the TCP congestion window grows, and a decent CDN is likely to be more reliable than the origin
- tracker1 7y agoI think that HTTP/2 + Push + EMS will eventually become very interesting. Without push, there's a lot of separate connections that will happen for a lot of users on a lot of sites/systems. I think that there will be some break out platforms to come from this.