5 ms·

You can have both. Cloudflare has an IPFS gateway that you can use with a Cloudflare domain. Content hosted in IPFS and CDN-ed via Cloudflare's network. An IPFS

You can have both. Cloudflare has an IPFS gateway that you can use with a Cloudflare domain. Content hosted in IPFS and CDN-ed via Cloudflare's network. An IPFS-capable client will bypass Cloudflare via the dnslink entry. See https://developers.cloudflare.com/distributed-web/ipfs-gateway/connecting-website/ https://developers.cloudflare.com/distributed-web/ipfs-gatew...

joecot 7y ago
Except then you still have to cover the demand from requests which bypass Cloudflare through the dnslink entry. Essentially it's a gimmicky system which is propped up by using Cloudflare, which ultimately fails once it actually gets user adoption, in a way the tradition setup (CDN + basic or even free hosting) would not. This only works because most users don't have IPFS support currently, and if they did the servers would grind to a halt just as they would with no CDN at all.
- kevincox 7y ago
  IIUC the theory is that the clients using native IPFS will be caching the content for a period of time and serving it to other IPFS clients. Therefore the load should be shared across viewers leading to a minimal increase on "origin" load.
  - joecot 7y ago
    Yes, theoretically that's the goal. Given they're showing 160GB of transfer on their servers, it doesn't seem like that's working particularly effectively. Regardless, this implementation does not demonstrate at all that IPFS would save a site from an internet hug -- just that Cloudflare can.
- rudolph9 7y ago
  The JavaScript node is coming along surprisingly well. Still not 100% production ready but light enough you could doom it in the background of pages without affecting the user experience. The addressing mechanism the sun out into IPLD is quite clever and IPFS is nearing the cusp of having a noticeable impact on the web when you consider your browser is potentially a node running in the background.

joecot 7y ago

Except then you still have to cover the demand from requests which bypass Cloudflare through the dnslink entry. Essentially it's a gimmicky system which is propped up by using Cloudflare, which ultimately fails once it actually gets user adoption, in a way the tradition setup (CDN + basic or even free hosting) would not. This only works because most users don't have IPFS support currently, and if they did the servers would grind to a halt just as they would with no CDN at all.

kevincox 7y ago
IIUC the theory is that the clients using native IPFS will be caching the content for a period of time and serving it to other IPFS clients. Therefore the load should be shared across viewers leading to a minimal increase on "origin" load.
- joecot 7y ago
  Yes, theoretically that's the goal. Given they're showing 160GB of transfer on their servers, it doesn't seem like that's working particularly effectively. Regardless, this implementation does not demonstrate at all that IPFS would save a site from an internet hug -- just that Cloudflare can.
rudolph9 7y ago
The JavaScript node is coming along surprisingly well. Still not 100% production ready but light enough you could doom it in the background of pages without affecting the user experience. The addressing mechanism the sun out into IPLD is quite clever and IPFS is nearing the cusp of having a noticeable impact on the web when you consider your browser is potentially a node running in the background.