31–40 of 66 posts
It would be interesting to know how Vercel stands.
All measurements are made in AWS Lambda env from Frankfurt Germany.
Full disclosure - I work for Sematext
Netlify results seem disappointing, I say that as a happy user of their service. Netlify is an outlier in this comparison. For them, static site hosting is their core product, bread and butter if you will. To have such mediocre performance, as well as a relatively bad time to first byte is quite surprising.
This article compares it to CDN services, which specialize in static file hosting. Static site hosting is just static file hosting with a different marketing strategy and behind-the-scenes workflow. The real disappointment here is Cloudflare, which manages to be among the slowest despite their supposed focus on performance. Google Cloud Storage manages to be significantly faster than Cloudflare, while serving files p…
And Netlify is also a disappointment because they are supposed to be all about hosting static websites, and their performance is poor for doing just that.
1: https://wasabi.com 2: https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage.html
The services were probed once every minute for 10 days If a page is being hit 1440 times a day for more than a week, without any content changes, wouldn't it end up being served from a caching server at the bigger hosts, with very little chance that it'll ever get flushed from the cache? It's valid to test that if that's the experience you want to test, but a website is only getting a few hundred views a week then yo…
Low expiry only makes sense when you are caching dynamic content like hackernews or reddit. You want caching because reddit is a high traffic site but you also don't want to delay content updates too much because your expiration time is too long.
CloudFlare's slowness is extremely surprising to me. From my house in Greece, I get a one millisecond ping to 1.1.1.1 (devices in my house have higher pings), so I was assuming that would carry over to their caches. Too bad about that, looks like I'm going to have to rethink my setup of having them cache my site on their edge.
You can use https://cloudflare-test.judge.sh/ to check from which Cloudflare nodes the sites are actually served. In my experience, sites on Enterprise plan are always loading from the closest node, which is never used by sites on Free plan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I get 8ms even to my WiFi router, how can you have such a low response time? My 1.1.1.1 time is 20ms (Romania).
No idea frate, though I use a wired desktop for the test, so wifi latency isn't a consideration.
A CDN doesn't actually offer you to host websites. Basically it caches your website content, and can help you in improving the performance your visitors. Eventhough Cloudflare is the most widely used free CDN, there are other CDNs you might need to look : https://www.nets4.com/2020/07/free-cdn-providers.html
CloudFlare's slowness is extremely surprising to me. From my house in Greece, I get a one millisecond ping to 1.1.1.1 (devices in my house have higher pings), so I was assuming that would carry over to their caches. Too bad about that, looks like I'm going to have to rethink my setup of having them cache my site on their edge.
I get 8ms even to my WiFi router, how can you have such a low response time? My 1.1.1.1 time is 20ms (Romania).
That’s almost assuredly a sign of radio congestion on the channel you are on causing retransmits. It could also be a poor quality AP or you could have to many clients on your AP, but most likely it’s the first one (in band interference causing lots of retransmits) based on experience.
CloudFlare's slowness is extremely surprising to me. From my house in Greece, I get a one millisecond ping to 1.1.1.1 (devices in my house have higher pings), so I was assuming that would carry over to their caches. Too bad about that, looks like I'm going to have to rethink my setup of having them cache my site on their edge.
I get 8ms even to my WiFi router, how can you have such a low response time? My 1.1.1.1 time is 20ms (Romania).