3 ms·
These links also support my claim. Again, you posted zero evidence to the contrary.
by bufferoverflow 7y ago
These links also support my claim. Again, you posted zero evidence to the contrary.
- penagwin 7y agoWe aren't arguing for the contrary. We're just trying to make sure you're evaluating them correctly. IanCal found some nice links that support your claim, but he even added that depending on what and how you use it, either may be better for you (You wanted to count cache hits).
- IanCal 7y agoThis isn't some game to win, I wanted to show that there may be more useful metrics that correspond to what we care about here, and talk of the nuances that might be important. I don't really care who said the right thing first but I do care what the reality is.
- manigandham 7y agoThe thread is about cache hit ratio which is not that simple. A file is either cached at an endpoint or not, regardless of whether it's downloaded once or a billion times. CDNJS only supports ~3k libraries and gets most of its usage from jQuery and FontAwesome. jsDelivr has an automated backend proxy to support any NPM package, Github repo, or Wordpress.org plugin. It also uses Cloudflare as one of its backends, so at worst it's at parity with CDNJS in cache hits or far better due to more network partners, more global regions, and more packages from more origins. Anything on CDNJS is also likely cached by jsDelivr, but most of everything cached on jsDelivr is not even available on CDNJS.
- IanCal 7y agoThe other side though is if something is cached at the client, right? I thought that was what people were talking about with cache hits.