71–80 of 128 posts
I am talking internally with the customer support team about what happened to this customer's traffic. It is definitively not the case that doing "four requests per minute" gets you rate limited.
I think it might also be worth considering whether returning 503 is the right response when rate limited. 5xx indicates server failure, a "429 Rate Limited" is a more appropriate response.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone came on HN to report that a free-tier product is failing in a way that’s undetectable and doesn’t make sense as described by the products’ marketing materials, and the resolution is to pay (a small amount) for the upgraded version. One of the Cloudflare engineers* immediately responds to the article saying he’s looking into things because this shouldn’t be happening. Everything seemed to be going so well in t…
It’s not the case with everyone, OP could wait until supports get back to him and investigates everything, and then push a pice on that. Bug -> Contact Support -> Wait for answer & solutions -> Happy or not ending. What if he accuses them without justification? Which is probably a case here.
I think Cloudflare is fine in most of the cases. Putting title "Never use Cloudflare free plan" with so weak arguments in the blog post is too much.
There's been a spate of "never" or "always" posts getting on the front page in recent days.
It's not a recent phenomenon.
I think Cloudflare is fine in most of the cases. Putting title "Never use Cloudflare free plan" with so weak arguments in the blog post is too much.
The graphs containing 503 errors to two different sites which were both resolved by paying seem to indicate his case is strong.
Bug resolved. Reason: not enough coffee.
Seriously these systems are complicated and it's easy to confuse correlation for causality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone came on HN to report that a free-tier product is failing in a way that’s undetectable and doesn’t make sense as described by the products’ marketing materials, and the resolution is to pay (a small amount) for the upgraded version. One of the Cloudflare engineers* immediately responds to the article saying he’s looking into things because this shouldn’t be happening. Everything seemed to be going so well in t…
It’s not the case with everyone, OP could wait until supports get back to him and investigates everything, and then push a pice on that. Bug -> Contact Support -> Wait for answer & solutions -> Happy or not ending. What if he accuses them without justification? Which is probably a case here.
He's already doing that. Even if it turns out that he happens to be right, it's coincidence.
Today there was a topic on HN about customers who complain about limiting free tiers. That’s a great example of it, especially from someone who provides paid SaaS product. Free tier is awesome for small websites, keeping domains and many other things. But if you run business who earns, then just pay for that god damn thing, and stop ranting. :-)
Someone came on HN to report that a free-tier product is failing in a way that’s undetectable and doesn’t make sense as described by the products’ marketing materials, and the resolution is to pay (a small amount) for the upgraded version. One of the Cloudflare engineers* immediately responds to the article saying he’s looking into things because this shouldn’t be happening. Everything seemed to be going so well in t…
Also, if the infrastructure is in AWS, CloudFront would cost cents if he really does have "4 requests per minute" with full integration and logs.
I have the feeling that with the advent of cloud solutions, very big companies depend on these really small and very useful tools that disregard almost entirely a number of best practices and standards. The Solarwinds incident is going to happen a lot more, that's for sure.
Regarding Cloudflare: I'm fine with the free product not being great, but hiding the logs is not understandable. I bet a lot more people would upgrade if they knew.
I thought about responding to some comments here but I feel like this point deserves a comment on its own: not to defend Cloudflare, but charging at least $19 / month, having 100 customers (as he said on the post) and not using a proper fully featured WAF to protect an enterprise product is... amateurish? Also, if the infrastructure is in AWS, CloudFront would cost cents if he really does have "4 requests per minute"…
I have two domains with millions of requests a month and hundreads of GB of bandwidth, both of them work quite well even in free mode. However today and few days ago too it seems requests going through Cloudflare are just timing out. So we finally move to paid plan We're monitoring both endpoints (CF and the origin)
Have you talked to support about this problem?
So that's another reason to subscribe since it's 20$ month. (AWS and other SaaS cost us an order of magnitude more)
Any case, what I meant to say, is that free plan works fairly well even at higher volumes.
If you expect more reliability, should definitely subscribe.
I thought about responding to some comments here but I feel like this point deserves a comment on its own: not to defend Cloudflare, but charging at least $19 / month, having 100 customers (as he said on the post) and not using a proper fully featured WAF to protect an enterprise product is... amateurish? Also, if the infrastructure is in AWS, CloudFront would cost cents if he really does have "4 requests per minute"…
What does the WAF get you that Cloudflare's free plan doesn't? I'm not doubting you, I genuinely want to know.