3 ms·
CloudFlare promotes their service as a highly redundant CDN but the truth is that this isn't the first outage and they fail at very simple things. I was using
by Nyr 14y ago
CloudFlare promotes their service as a highly redundant CDN but the truth is that this isn't the first outage and they fail at very simple things.
I was using them until one day, they had routing problems with their DNS servers to some parts of the world (about 20% IIRC). This shouldn't be a issue except because all the name servers they provide were routing to the same network, making all my services unavailable for more than one hour. Yes, they have anycast and all that cool things, but if they fail providing real redundancy for DNS, I can't be their customer anymore.
- true_religion 14y agoI think CloudFlare isn't bad for a small-to-midsize site. They're new in the industry and still learning. If you have a large mature site, then its likely your uptime will be better than theirs and you'll lose serious money for every minute of downtime. In that case, don't use CloudFlare because they're still learning from their mistakes.
- benatkin 14y ago> They're new in the industry and still learning. They aren't that new, and they would have learned faster if they had better priorities. Not only do they seem to prioritize the script minification and code insertion over performance, they seem to prioritize popularity over customer service. It's easy to find reviews of CloudFlare where someone running a small-to-midsize site gave them a fair shot and was disappointed.