4 ms·

Of course this graph is probably bullshit too as we simply don’t know enough about how the data was generated… > We use Real User Measurements (RUM) and fetch

Of course this graph is probably bullshit too as we simply don’t know enough about how the data was generated… > We use Real User Measurements (RUM) and fetch a small file from Cloudflare, Akamai, CloudFront, Fastly and Google Cloud CDN. Browsers around the world report the performance of those providers from the perspective of the end-user network they are on Even the blog post they reference doesn’t cover much more detail Key thing is to be measuring via RUM they must be injecting the script into sites they serve (and presumably the free ones) so there may already be bias introduced here, also why choose a 100kb file, how does the data differ if say a 10kb or 200kb is used etc. Lots of questions about the methodology remain

NicoJuicy 3y ago
There's always going to be something to complain about, I guess... To counterpoint, I always found it interesting that cloudflare talks about population density ( big cities) on where to perform faster. Since that's where most of the population lives. I haven't seen any other companies talk about that outside of cloudflare. And it seems a more important real-life benchmark than deciding the difference between 10 kb, 100 kb or 200 kb... Tbh, I think 100 kb. Is just the smallest relevant size which they thought, looking at their speedtest file sizes of 100 kb, 1 mb and 10 mb - https://speed.cloudflare.com/ https://speed.cloudflare.com/
- youngtaff 3y ago
  > There's always going to be something to complain about, I guess... Cloudflare are making the claim that they’re faster than others, and they collected the data they’re basing their claim on They’re always going to try to present themselves favourably so that means we should be skeptical and ask questions about the gaps in the data and the methodology
  - NicoJuicy 3y ago
    Sure, I agree. But couldn't find much too doubt though. Questioning 10, 100 vs 200 kb. seemed nitting to me, if I may say that. I've seen a lot of bias against cloudflare since fastly's blaming and a lot seems exaggerated to me. It's like they have to hold standards 20 x higher than the rest to make the same point. And tbh. They actually didn't earn the blame that happened then ( if I remember it correctly) I'm sure fastly would be quick to point out any errors ( relevant or not) in benchmarking. And considering they didn't for a month and considering history, that also bears meaning. Since they are the obvious losers here ( only faster in Liberia... ). Additionally, I'm pretty sure eastdakota's statement "game on" and their unfortunate PR disaster ( they have gone much more silent since then), would mean they are double checking any benchmarking for errors. At least, if I can guess cloudflare 's management correctly. Note: fan of the firm + management. Got shares. If I wouldn't think they are acting in good faith, I'd probably sell my shares.

NicoJuicy 3y ago

There's always going to be something to complain about, I guess... To counterpoint, I always found it interesting that cloudflare talks about population density ( big cities) on where to perform faster. Since that's where most of the population lives. I haven't seen any other companies talk about that outside of cloudflare. And it seems a more important real-life benchmark than deciding the difference between 10 kb, 100 kb or 200 kb... Tbh, I think 100 kb. Is just the smallest relevant size which they thought, looking at their speedtest file sizes of 100 kb, 1 mb and 10 mb - https://speed.cloudflare.com/ https://speed.cloudflare.com/

youngtaff 3y ago
> There's always going to be something to complain about, I guess... Cloudflare are making the claim that they’re faster than others, and they collected the data they’re basing their claim on They’re always going to try to present themselves favourably so that means we should be skeptical and ask questions about the gaps in the data and the methodology
- NicoJuicy 3y ago
  Sure, I agree. But couldn't find much too doubt though. Questioning 10, 100 vs 200 kb. seemed nitting to me, if I may say that. I've seen a lot of bias against cloudflare since fastly's blaming and a lot seems exaggerated to me. It's like they have to hold standards 20 x higher than the rest to make the same point. And tbh. They actually didn't earn the blame that happened then ( if I remember it correctly) I'm sure fastly would be quick to point out any errors ( relevant or not) in benchmarking. And considering they didn't for a month and considering history, that also bears meaning. Since they are the obvious losers here ( only faster in Liberia... ). Additionally, I'm pretty sure eastdakota's statement "game on" and their unfortunate PR disaster ( they have gone much more silent since then), would mean they are double checking any benchmarking for errors. At least, if I can guess cloudflare 's management correctly. Note: fan of the firm + management. Got shares. If I wouldn't think they are acting in good faith, I'd probably sell my shares.