3 ms·
You thought that they build > 300 DC's? Colo is much more flexible, cheaper and quicker to start. Definitely since they sit close to the end-user on the data p
by NicoJuicy 3y ago
You thought that they build > 300 DC's?
Colo is much more flexible, cheaper and quicker to start. Definitely since they sit close to the end-user on the data plane.
- andyjohnson0 3y ago> You thought that they build > 300 DC's? I have no idea how many DCs they have or operate in. Where does "300" come from? > Colo is much more flexible, cheaper and quicker to start. Definitely since they sit close to the end-user on the data plane. I understand that, but it has the disadvantage of reduced control and observability - particularly in the event of an outage such as that described in the blog post. I kind of assumed that top-tier cloud platforms like AWS/Azure/GCP operate out of dedicated DCs, and that CF are similar because of their well-known scale of operations. Since my original comment has been downvoted†, someone presumably thinks this it was a naive or trivial question - although I don't understand why. († I don't much care about downvotes, but I do take them to be a signal.)
- martinald 3y agohttps://www.cloudflare.com/network/ https://www.cloudflare.com/network/
- NicoJuicy 3y agoProbably most of us follow Cloudflare a bit more closely. They want DC's close to every big city. I think most of us knew that they can't launch > 300 DC's in such a short amount of time. The many amount of DC's is mentioned a lot ( social networks, blogs, here). There is a distinction between eg. AWS / Azure / ... Which work with a couple of big DC's, while cloudflare operates more spread across more locations. You're comment did made me realize it may may not be that clear from an outsider viewpoint though ( fyi, I'm an outsider too)