4 ms·
No, he's correct here, it's an extra indirection and so overall it can only hurt performance, not improve it. For example, ISPs often have caching servers from
by zzzcpan 7y ago
No, he's correct here, it's an extra indirection and so overall it can only hurt performance, not improve it. For example, ISPs often have caching servers from Google installed and Google is the biggest traffic generator. If you route traffic through somewhere else you are going to reach different Google's caching servers that are farther away and over more congested links.
- CharlesW 7y ago> No, he's correct here, it's an extra indirection and so overall it can only hurt performance, not improve it. Really? The cost of an extra hop is just one of tens (hundreds?) of factors that would determine if using WARP would be faster for a particular scenario.
- zzzcpan 7y agoThat's not an extra hop, but essentially two different paths with many different hops instead of a more direct one. I'm sure there will be edge cases where this can be faster due to one of those factors, but for most destinations it will be slower.
- Pfhreak 7y agoIn aggregate, is it necessarily an extra indirection? If, for example, your ISP bounces around a bunch getting to your destination and Cloudflare has a faster path, isn't it possible they have the faster path?