3 ms·

> Pinging tty.sdf.org which is a direct access shell service in USA from somewhere between Europe and Asia, from an academic network backbone roundtrips in ~190

> Pinging tty.sdf.org which is a direct access shell service in USA from somewhere between Europe and Asia, from an academic network backbone roundtrips in ~190ms. Actually I get around 200 from Russia which is also "somewhere between Europe and Asia": round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 196.504/197.581/199.833/1.360 ms > By using Cloudflare workers, so your code is also distributed around the globe? Great, let's give that company even more control. That's sure gonna end well. > CSS, images, JS, HTML, you name it. It all gets loaded once and then cached in the browser. The initial load takes long regardless of whether there's a CDN. Oh, and many websites also use stuff from like 10 different domains, which doesn't help this either. And, it doesn't matter whether a JS file loads in 50 ms or 300 ms, if it then takes 5 seconds to parse and start running. > Actually, CDN is the most basic optimization for distributing heavy assets like videos and images, which news websites use way more than text. Why not use a CDN? So put them on a separate domain and serve that from a CDN if you really care whether that stock photo no one notices loads in 500 ms instead of 2000. That doesn't explain much why anyone would put their main domain behind cloudflare.

bayindirh 6y ago
> Great, let's give that company even more control. That's sure gonna end well. We have enough evil companies who invade our lives through the platform develop. Cloudflare is not one of them. Using them is voluntary (by the service providers), and I think they're one of the more useful companies around. BTW, I'm not a web developer or Cloudflare employee. I have no skin in this stuff, however they build some cool stuff inside the Linux kernel, which is interesting from my PoV. > It all gets loaded once and then cached in the browser. Then cleared and/or invalidated by the user or browser's logic itself due to plethora of reasons. > The initial load takes long regardless of whether there's a CDN. Actually, no. A reasonably fast internet connection (>12 Mbps we can say) can load a lot of things very very fast. The biggest overhead is DNS, even with CDNs. With a good local, network-wide DNSMasq installation, if the server is close, I can load big sites almost instantly. > And, it doesn't matter whether a JS file loads in 50 ms or 300 ms, if it then takes 5 seconds to parse and start running. I think 5 seconds is long time for even the old Netscape Navigator's JS parser. You need to run something akin skynet to parse the JS file for straight 5 seconds. How's that even possible? > So put them on a separate domain and serve that from a CDN if you really care whether that stock photo no one notices loads in 500 ms instead of 2000. I don't know you, but world news generally contains live/new footage or fresh photos from the ground, not some stock photos, also we humans are visual animals. Many people want to see the images first, read the text later. > That doesn't explain much why anyone would put their main domain behind cloudflare. Load balancing, DDoS protection, CDN, workers, Bot/Scraping protection, cost reduction, rate limiting, you name it. Even my DSL router implements some of the protections, to my surprise. Internet is not the same beast now when compared to 90s/00s. I miss the simpler times, but alas.

bayindirh 6y ago

> Great, let's give that company even more control. That's sure gonna end well. We have enough evil companies who invade our lives through the platform develop. Cloudflare is not one of them. Using them is voluntary (by the service providers), and I think they're one of the more useful companies around. BTW, I'm not a web developer or Cloudflare employee. I have no skin in this stuff, however they build some cool stuff inside the Linux kernel, which is interesting from my PoV. > It all gets loaded once and then cached in the browser. Then cleared and/or invalidated by the user or browser's logic itself due to plethora of reasons. > The initial load takes long regardless of whether there's a CDN. Actually, no. A reasonably fast internet connection (>12 Mbps we can say) can load a lot of things very very fast. The biggest overhead is DNS, even with CDNs. With a good local, network-wide DNSMasq installation, if the server is close, I can load big sites almost instantly. > And, it doesn't matter whether a JS file loads in 50 ms or 300 ms, if it then takes 5 seconds to parse and start running. I think 5 seconds is long time for even the old Netscape Navigator's JS parser. You need to run something akin skynet to parse the JS file for straight 5 seconds. How's that even possible? > So put them on a separate domain and serve that from a CDN if you really care whether that stock photo no one notices loads in 500 ms instead of 2000. I don't know you, but world news generally contains live/new footage or fresh photos from the ground, not some stock photos, also we humans are visual animals. Many people want to see the images first, read the text later. > That doesn't explain much why anyone would put their main domain behind cloudflare. Load balancing, DDoS protection, CDN, workers, Bot/Scraping protection, cost reduction, rate limiting, you name it. Even my DSL router implements some of the protections, to my surprise. Internet is not the same beast now when compared to 90s/00s. I miss the simpler times, but alas.