3 ms·
Interesting results, but let's think about a few things before we all switch to Cloudflare CDNJS. 1) Time to first byte. In my experience the biggest lag is th
by anonfunction 14y ago
Interesting results, but let's think about a few things before we all switch to Cloudflare CDNJS.
1) Time to first byte. In my experience the biggest lag is the connection, not actually downloading the file (for small js, images, etc...) I don't know how to test this.
2) Caching, by using google for common libraries like jQuery your chance of the end client already having a local cached copy are much greater.
3) Reliability. I know google has been recently killing off it's products, and even I tweeted how they could break the internet by shutting off their hosted library API, but it's probably not going to happen. Can you say the same about cloudflare?
I'm not saying I like one more than the other, but these are some things I would like to address before switching my and my clients sites over.
One thing I will give a +1 to Cloudflare is the ability to add js to the CDN via github. https://github.com/cdnjs/cdnjs https://github.com/cdnjs/cdnjs
- rgbrenner 14y agoUsing wget for a test is just terrible. Here's a better test (and I'll put it here, so everyone can criticize it): 1) start chrome in incognito mode. 2) press f12, and then click on network 3) load each js I'm in Denver, this is what I got: Google: DNS Lookup: 14ms Connecting: 24ms Sending: 0 Waiting: 46ms Receiving: 42ms TOTAL: 128ms (86ms latency) Cloudflare: DNS Lookup: 15ms Connecting: 43ms Sending: 0 Waiting: 46ms Receiving: 49ms TOTAL: 154ms (105ms latency) I can't take a test run with wget seriously when there are better tools so easily available. It's beyond lazy.. it's incompetence, or worse, dishonest. He couldn't even be bothered to run it more than once from his own computer(!)