3 ms·

Yes, they absolutely can [1]. 1: https://blog.cloudflare.com/how-cloudflare-auto-mitigated-world-record-3-8-tbps-ddos-attack/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/how-c

Yes, they absolutely can [1]. 1: https://blog.cloudflare.com/how-cloudflare-auto-mitigated-world-record-3-8-tbps-ddos-attack/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/how-cloudflare-auto-mitigated-wo...

fragmede 2y ago
Cloudflare's paid DDoS protection product being able to soak up insane L3/4 DDoS attacks doesn't answer the question as to whether or not the specific product, R2 from Cloudflare which has free egress is able to saturate a pipe. Cloudflare has the network to do that, but they charge money to do so with their other offerings, so why would they give that to you for free? R2 is not a CDN.
- moralestapia 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - fragmede 2y ago
    > can't read CDN > Can't read R2 k
bananapub 2y ago
that's completely unrelated. the way to soak up a ddos at scale is just "have lots of peering and a fucking massive amount of ingress". neither of these tell you how fast you can serve static data.
- moralestapia 2y ago
  >that's completely unrelated Yeah, I'm sure they use a completely different network infrastructure to serve R2 requests.
JoshTriplett 2y ago
That's unrelated to the performance of (for instance) the R2 storage layer. All the bandwidth in the world won't help you if you're blocked on storage. It isn't clear whether the overall performance of R2 is capable of saturating user bandwidth, or whether it'll be blocked on something. S3 can't saturate user bandwidth unless you make many parallel requests. I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if R2 can.
- moralestapia 2y ago
  I'm confused, I assumed we were talking about the network layer. If we are talking about storage, well, SATA can't give you more than ~5Gbps so I guess the answer is no? But also no one else can do it, unless they're using super exotic HDD tech (hint: they're not, it's actually the opposite). What a weird thing to argue about, btw, literally everybody is running a network layer on top of storage that lets you have much higher throughput. When one talks about R2/S3 throughput no one (on my circle, ofc.) would think we are referring to the speed of their HDDs, lmao. But it's nice to see this, it's always amusing to stumble upon people with a wildly different point of view on things.
  - renewiltord 2y ago
    No, most people aren’t interested in subcomponent performance, just in total performance. A trivial example is that even a 4-striped U2 NVMe disk array exported over Ethernet can deliver a lot more data than 5 Gbps and store mucho TiB.
    - moralestapia 2y ago
      Thanks for +1 what I just said. So, apparently, it's not just me and my peers who think like this.
      - chaoskitty 2y ago
        That comment didn't +1 what you just said. It basically said that we care about the total, usable throughput. Whether some specific components are capable of more doesn't mean anything unless / until that greather throughput is usable by us.

Yes, they absolutely can [1]. 1: https://blog.cloudflare.com/how-cloudflare-auto-mitigated-world-record-3-8-tbps-ddos-attack/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/how-cloudflare-auto-mitigated-wo...

fragmede 2y ago

Cloudflare's paid DDoS protection product being able to soak up insane L3/4 DDoS attacks doesn't answer the question as to whether or not the specific product, R2 from Cloudflare which has free egress is able to saturate a pipe. Cloudflare has the network to do that, but they charge money to do so with their other offerings, so why would they give that to you for free? R2 is not a CDN.

moralestapia 2y ago
[flagged]
- fragmede 2y ago
  > can't read CDN > Can't read R2 k

bananapub 2y ago

that's completely unrelated. the way to soak up a ddos at scale is just "have lots of peering and a fucking massive amount of ingress". neither of these tell you how fast you can serve static data.

moralestapia 2y ago
>that's completely unrelated Yeah, I'm sure they use a completely different network infrastructure to serve R2 requests.

JoshTriplett 2y ago

That's unrelated to the performance of (for instance) the R2 storage layer. All the bandwidth in the world won't help you if you're blocked on storage. It isn't clear whether the overall performance of R2 is capable of saturating user bandwidth, or whether it'll be blocked on something. S3 can't saturate user bandwidth unless you make many parallel requests. I'd be (pleasantly) surprised if R2 can.

moralestapia 2y ago
I'm confused, I assumed we were talking about the network layer. If we are talking about storage, well, SATA can't give you more than ~5Gbps so I guess the answer is no? But also no one else can do it, unless they're using super exotic HDD tech (hint: they're not, it's actually the opposite). What a weird thing to argue about, btw, literally everybody is running a network layer on top of storage that lets you have much higher throughput. When one talks about R2/S3 throughput no one (on my circle, ofc.) would think we are referring to the speed of their HDDs, lmao. But it's nice to see this, it's always amusing to stumble upon people with a wildly different point of view on things.
- renewiltord 2y ago
  No, most people aren’t interested in subcomponent performance, just in total performance. A trivial example is that even a 4-striped U2 NVMe disk array exported over Ethernet can deliver a lot more data than 5 Gbps and store mucho TiB.
  - moralestapia 2y ago
    Thanks for +1 what I just said. So, apparently, it's not just me and my peers who think like this.
    - chaoskitty 2y ago
      That comment didn't +1 what you just said. It basically said that we care about the total, usable throughput. Whether some specific components are capable of more doesn't mean anything unless / until that greather throughput is usable by us.