4 ms·
Not used CloudFlare myself. I am guessing that the results are much closer with a dynamically generated php site with response headers set to "Cache-Control: ma
by ciderpunx 14y ago
Not used CloudFlare myself. I am guessing that the results are much closer with a dynamically generated php site with response headers set to "Cache-Control: max_age=1" (as is sh42.com) than they would be with something static and cacheable like, say, a flat html page. The main benefit will be that images, js and such get cached, but the poster says that the sites are vanilla (hence probably light on images and such) or already quite well optimized (with yslow and such).
I've had good success with apc for locally caching php code; I bet that would have made a much bigger difference than a CDN like cloudflare for the use cases described.