4 ms·
The question is, is CloudFlare caching IPFS or not? If CloudFlare is running IPFS naked, then IPFS seems to be scaling. If CloudFlare is caching IPFS, then it
by marknadal 7y ago
The question is, is CloudFlare caching IPFS or not?
If CloudFlare is running IPFS naked, then IPFS seems to be scaling.
If CloudFlare is caching IPFS, then it is CloudFlare saving their butts.
Can we confirm which it is?
I'm trying to chat with CloudFlare about my own P2P protocol, which I've seen handle HackerNoon's 15M monthly users (I saw about 10K concurrent users per second at peak load), to run GUN ( https://github.com/amark/gun https://github.com/amark/gun ).
Because I do think it is important to test all these protocols out at bigger/larger scales, that certainly makes it easier to then debug and then fix problems (assuming CF isn't caching).
- Skunkleton 7y agoDatapoint: I installed the FF extension mentioned in the article, and the performance of /ipns/withblue.ink was inferior to what cloudflare provided.
- cmiles74 7y agoYes, it's the CloudFlare caching that is providing the site to the majority of people. For the IPFS version, people need to have a plugin installed or have the IPFS software running on their machines.
- joecot 7y ago> If CloudFlare is running IPFS naked, then IPFS seems to be scaling. > If CloudFlare is caching IPFS, then it is CloudFlare saving their butts. They are caching IPFS for people who don't support IPFS. They are not caching IPFS for people who do support IPFS, and instead passing the user through to the IPFS servers. Which means Cloudflare is indeed saving their butts, because as soon as IPFS has widespread support, this falls flat on its face. Same as traditional hosting would without a CDN. Their IPFS setup may be able to distribute the load enough to avoid an internet hug crippling it (that's part of IPFS's point), but this setup in no way demonstrates that.