3 ms·

Would a smaller CDN provider have no outages at all?

• sgtfrankieboy 5y ago
  No, but it would take down less sites if it does have one.
  • gpm 5y ago
    Is that a feature? If we have 12 small cdns have 12 outages in a year (combined, 1/year each), each time bringing down 10,000 websites, is that better than 1 large cdn having one outage during the year bringing down 120,000 websites? If I'm the website owner I think I prefer the latter, my customers blame the cdn instead of me. If I'm the cdn owner I definitely prefer the latter, more customers to amortize my costs over.
    • iso1210 5y ago
      From a customer point of view diversity is far better it's great - if Sainsburys is closed for some reason I'll go to Tesco. Certainly don't want a situation where all the shops are closed.
• martius 5y ago
  It may be more acceptable to have more frequent outages if the impact radius (number of websites or services impacted) is smaller.
• zelon88 5y ago
  Obviously that isn't an honest comparison. If you're asking whether or not 10 small CDN providers could provide a more robust, higher quality service with more uptime than one large CDN provider, then I think the answer is probably "yes."
• unhammer 5y ago
  There's kind of a race-to-the-bottom[0] wrt. decentralisation. It'd be better for the internet as a whole if we don't always pick the most popular (so when your email's CDN goes down you can still communicate on chat, when CNN goes down you can still read BBC). But as an individual I have strong incentives to pick the one everyone else picks, because that's presumably the most stable/documented/lowest cost due to volume. [0] https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/