3 ms·
> Using a CDN for resources is strictly worse, now, performance-wise. It's still normally significantly better if only for the fact the CDN's servers are physi
by tick_tock_tick 5y ago
> Using a CDN for resources is strictly worse, now, performance-wise.
It's still normally significantly better if only for the fact the CDN's servers are physically closer to the client.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- lelandfe 5y ago"Normally," i.e. when the origin itself is not behind a CDN, right?
- r1ch 5y agoNot necessarily even then. Connecting to a new domain has the overhead of a DNS lookup, TCP connection and TLS handshake before you can even send the request (and be stuck in slow start for the first few RTTs).
- idop 5y agoFrom my experience CDNs degrade performance. For most websites, they are the resources that are loaded the slowest, and are usually loaded synchronously, thus blocking page interaction. I should note that I live in Israel, and geograpical distribution by CDNs may be at fault here. Regardless, as others have noted, I have already connected with the website, third party connections have a high chance if impacting perfotmance for the worse.