4 ms·

> Cloudflare used a free Fastly trial account to conduct their tests. Free trial accounts are designed for limited use compared to paid accounts, and performanc

> Cloudflare used a free Fastly trial account to conduct their tests. Free trial accounts are designed for limited use compared to paid accounts, and performance under load is not comparable between the two. https://www.fastly.com/pricing/ https://www.fastly.com/pricing/ does not make a distinction it says that "Any size company looking to give Fastly a try." They make distinctions on paying for more bandwidth, not that they are giving you an inferior product performance wise.

flumpcakes 5y ago
> They make distinctions on paying for more bandwidth, not that they are giving you an inferior product performance wise. I think this is a non-sequitur. Bandwidth is a fundamental property of the performance of a system, if you can "pay for more bandwidth" then you are literally getting an inferior product when you do not pay. Consider the implementation for "paying for more bandwidth". I assume that it is the same copper cabling hitting the same switches for fee paying and non-fee paying customers so the only way to "offer more bandwidth" is to implement some kind of quality-of-service metric on the network. This is explicitly giving the non-fee paying customer an inferior product.
- judge2020 5y ago
  > Test up to $50 of traffic for free. Pay as you go from there with bandwidth pricing. Looks like it's just post-use monitoring that'll cut off the account after it exceeds the trial limit or start billing per-GB; it doesn't say 'slower connection', so CF didn't realize that a trial account would affect their benchmarks regarding Compute@Edge
- rileymat2 5y ago
  People have stopped using "bandwidth" as we used to. It now means a total sum of the amount transferred in a lot of cases, not the "width" of the pipe. It is more evident here: https://www.fastly.com/pricing/#bandwidthpricing https://www.fastly.com/pricing/#bandwidthpricing (To be clear, I agree with your definition, but it is not used)

flumpcakes 5y ago

> They make distinctions on paying for more bandwidth, not that they are giving you an inferior product performance wise. I think this is a non-sequitur. Bandwidth is a fundamental property of the performance of a system, if you can "pay for more bandwidth" then you are literally getting an inferior product when you do not pay. Consider the implementation for "paying for more bandwidth". I assume that it is the same copper cabling hitting the same switches for fee paying and non-fee paying customers so the only way to "offer more bandwidth" is to implement some kind of quality-of-service metric on the network. This is explicitly giving the non-fee paying customer an inferior product.

judge2020 5y ago
> Test up to $50 of traffic for free. Pay as you go from there with bandwidth pricing. Looks like it's just post-use monitoring that'll cut off the account after it exceeds the trial limit or start billing per-GB; it doesn't say 'slower connection', so CF didn't realize that a trial account would affect their benchmarks regarding Compute@Edge
rileymat2 5y ago
People have stopped using "bandwidth" as we used to. It now means a total sum of the amount transferred in a lot of cases, not the "width" of the pipe. It is more evident here: https://www.fastly.com/pricing/#bandwidthpricing https://www.fastly.com/pricing/#bandwidthpricing (To be clear, I agree with your definition, but it is not used)