3 ms·
Not saying your experience isn't true, but I've heard horror stories of accounts being disabled for using too much "non-HTML" bandwidth, even on business level
by Aea 5y ago
Not saying your experience isn't true, but I've heard horror stories of accounts being disabled for using too much "non-HTML" bandwidth, even on business level ($200/month) accounts (at the single digit TB level). The limits seem to be arbitrary and ill defined.
CF may be great technically, but I personally wouldn't use them without an enterprise agreement in place. Bandwidth should be cheap, but cheap does not equal free.
Unless I had an enterprise agreement in place I'd rather work with a vendor that has a well defined usage-based pricing. I have a low appetite for risk, and usage-based pricing aligns incentives properly IMHO.
- aclelland 5y agoYes, you are right that an enterprise agreement is probably the safest approach and it's definitely something we have looked into since the beginning of the year. In our case, one of our games DAU went pretty crazy last Christmas which resulted in a huge increase in players (who all need to download hundreds of MB of data). Maybe if it'd continued for many months the situation would be different and that angry email from CF would have eventually arrived.
- corobo 5y agoHow long ago was that?
- Aea 5y agoCame across these 3-4 years ago when I was doing research on whether CF would be viable for a previous company.
- breakingcups 5y agoYeah, that's why I haven't dared put them in front of my B2 buckets, even though they have the Bandwidth Alliance.
- jonny_eh 5y ago> I personally wouldn't use them without an enterprise agreement in place That would depend on the use case I'd assume.