4 ms·
Good question. It depends on the caching strategy. As we essentially serve Gists we have two types of URLs one something like [gist-id]/ meaning the latest ver
by zubairov 14y ago
Good question. It depends on the caching strategy.
As we essentially serve Gists we have two types of URLs one something like [gist-id]/ meaning the latest version of that particular gist and another URL is [gist-id]/[revision-id] which is a particular revision. For 'latest' URL we just do a redirect to particular latest version.
For first type of resource we have 60 seconds expire, however it is also not too expensive to re-generate it. For second type of resource (with particular revision) we have much higher expire time (several days).
By this type of caching strategy I assume we will get only 20% of all requests to our servers so saving is significant.
- madarco 14y agoSince there is a 1005ms latency for a cache-miss, for the average user the loading times are shorter? (based on your data on hit/miss ratio) I was thinking to use Cloudfront to lower the latency (not costs) for dynamic resources, because in Italy there isn't an ec2 datacenter, but there is an edge location for Cloudfront.
- zubairov 14y agoHi, No 1005 ms was not a cache miss it was a request to the origin server. Latency was 799 ms. I assume CloudFront will contribute some latency, however in our case (we are using Heroku) our servers were already on Amazon platform, therefore CloudFront --> our server latency should be significantly lower. So CloudFront cache miss latency for the enduser will be not significantly higher than origin server latency for the enduser.
- madarco 14y agoThanks, I've asked because I've read somewhere that an average request for a "Miss from cloudfront" object was ~1 second, and I thought that your data was confirming that value.