3 ms·
Exec summary: This is not caching. It is reduced latency for your visitors by removing connection setup over a large geographical distance. It also reduces the
by mmaunder 14y ago
Exec summary: This is not caching. It is reduced latency for your visitors by removing connection setup over a large geographical distance. It also reduces the latency your web server has to deal with to effectively zero, but you can do that with Nginx. It also will reduce your bandwidth consumption from your providers perspective to a fraction of what it was.
I think describing this as caching hides the real benefits. My startup pushes 150 Mbps on average so I care about this stuff.
Rather than being caching, this introduces a proxy server that is geographically close to your visitors that then communicates with your server using an efficient compression protocol. So, much of the network path that would transfer a full payload is replaced by a compressed connection that does not have to build up and tear down a TCP connection with a three way handshake. The most important benefit I see here for site visitors is reducing latency by removing the connection setup. They will spend a few ms setting up the connection with a server a few hundred miles from them instead of on the other side of the planet. That server then serves a cached page or uses an established connection to only get the changes, which could mean as little as a single send and single receive packet.
Another benefit of this is that your local web server will be talking to a local cloudflare client which means there is practically zero latency from your perspective for each request. This means that each of your app server instances spends less time waiting for it's client to send or receive data and more time serving app requests. It's why people put Nginx in front of Apache.
I think the most important cost benefit here is reducing your bandwidth consumption. We're constantly negotiating our colo deal based on 95th percentile and getting your throughput from 1 Gbps down to 50 Mbps which I think this may do will drastically reduce your real hosting costs. Of course Cloudflare need to maintain their servers and will be serving 1Gbps to your customers but those cloudflare servers will be geographically closer to your customers. However because data centers bill based on your throughput at the switch and not how far your customers are away from you, I don't see that there are any cost savings they (cloudflare) can pass on to you. They're going to be billed what you were being billed for bandwidth, but they'll mark it up. I suppose you could argue there are economies of scale they benefit from, but that doesn't seem like a compelling argument for reduced costs.
- jgrahamc 14y agoCloudFlare does not bill customers for bandwidth consumed. It's a flat fee: https://www.cloudflare.com/plans https://www.cloudflare.com/plans
- mmaunder 14y agoHoly cupcakes. I might use this. So I can use your free package which includes the CDN to serve 100 Mbps of static JS and images?
- jgrahamc 14y agoYes. And we'll also send you some cupcakes.
- mmaunder 14y agoI'm curious if I'm going to run into a catch. It seems unsustainable. Just to be clear, that's 30.8 Terrabytes of data I'll be transferring per month on your network for $0. Can someone verify this?
- jgrahamc 14y agoI'm not on the business side, but looking at our global traffic 30TB per month is a tiny percentage of what we are doing in terms of traffic. I doubt it would go unnoticed, though, so I expect someone will be interested in persuading you to get a Business account with us which is $200/month because at that point we give you an SLA.
- rdl 14y agoIf they go down, you go down. But in my experience they have been quite reliable; if you aren't already in 3 sites on independent networks for HA, they are better. I'd spring for the $200/mo service if you are pushing real traffic just to get to try the railgun. $200 is less than epsilon for a large site. Also, the cupcakes are probably a lie, or at least are vegan.
- 14y ago