Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

lexx.gr

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 124 posts

Re: Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

#111

Post by ddorian43 »

redm wrote: post #52

This is a problem of CloudFlare's own making. They provided a lot of services for "free" to gain scale and market share. Now they are a public company, and things are changing. A pro plan does not give you unlimited CDN data transfer, but I've heard from people enough times, "Just do it on Cloudflare for free", and that perception is CloudFlare's making. When you get to the Enterprise tier, CloudFlare works just like…

> However, Cloudflare, not without its faults, is still the best option out there.

What type of pricing on enterprise per TB on how bulk usage?

Re: Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

#112

Post by ddorian43 »

judge2020 wrote: post #9
henriquez wrote: post #3

There are better CDNs for image proxies, Stackpath is way nicer than Cloudflare for image hosting and cheap. Plus you don’t have to let them MitM your pages and endpoints.

Tough to beat r2's pricing at $0.015/GB-month for storage and no bandwidth fees. https://developers.cloudflare.com/r2/platform/pricing/

R2 is not a CDN, but object storage. You also have request fees.

Re: Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

#113

Post by emn13 »

erdaniels wrote: post #13
pkulak wrote: post #10

Break the terms of service, get mad and write a blog post. It's not even hidden in some legalese; they tell you not to serve majority image/video content _everywhere_ in the UI. All my tunnels are still running great, for free. I could not be happier.

I feel like as a paying customer a warning and migration deadline would have gone a long way.

Enforcing vague rules is always problematic. The rule itself is intrinsically problematic, because people will see that others get away with it, often for seemingly no reason. While the OPs case looks clear cut, rules like this are always going to catch out people small hard to explain changes will cross the invisible and likely fuzzy line at moments people don't predict correctly.

And that further underlines the need for a grace period, if this really is the best model cloudflare can come up with (presumably it is).

Re: Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

#114

Post by emn13 »

nimbius wrote: post #31
pkulak wrote: post #10

Break the terms of service, get mad and write a blog post. It's not even hidden in some legalese; they tell you not to serve majority image/video content _everywhere_ in the UI. All my tunnels are still running great, for free. I could not be happier.

this assessment is reasonable, but not productive. - Read your terms of service, contractual responsibility and liability for all services. as a leader, youre authoritative and liable for shareholder and corporate risk. - What you do after the fact is just as important --if not more-- than what you didnt do before. Channel this outrage into action, identify the problem, and countermeasure it to ensure future success.…

It is impossible to read all the the terms of services, especially including all the updates, to all of the services an average person uses. There simply is way, way too much text and vague legalese to read and understand.

This is incidentally true of (by)laws too, and it's part of the why behind the familiar adage that it's better to ask forgiveness than permission.

Re: Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

#115

Post by joshspankit »

kayodelycaon wrote: post #34
furyofantares wrote: post #16

I read the terms before signing up with cloudflare for any of my sites, and it was quite clear it's not meant to be used as an image proxy > 2.8 Limitation on Serving Non-HTML Content > The Services are offered primarily as a platform to cache and serve web pages and websites. Unless explicitly included as part of a Paid Service purchased by you, you agree to use the Services solely for the purpose of (i) serving web…

Iirc, Cloudflare offers image caching through their CDN service. So it’s not like they don’t allow it at all. You just need to pay for it.

I’ve seen this exact poor customer experience dozens of times and I shake my head each time.

If there’s a tier to pay for that removes the restriction, then every agent who supports that product should know about it and guide users on why and how to upgrade.

Re: Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

#116

Post by joshspankit »

tmikaeld wrote: post #108
judge2020 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I address that - $200/mo is a lot more than the $20/mo a pro plan costs, which is why upgrading to Business might've been enough, depending on the traffic levels of the service in question. But if your service is pushing terabytes of images or billions of requests, you're costing CF a lot more than they're getting back (in both money and a stronger network presence). Pretty much every booru gets away with paying $200…

Also, using r2 to host the images and a worker to proxy them, is allowed, with unlimited traffic and requests.

Can you elaborate or point to a guide with more detail?

Re: Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

#117

Post by corobo »

joshspankit wrote: post #116
tmikaeld wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, using r2 to host the images and a worker to proxy them, is allowed, with unlimited traffic and requests.

Can you elaborate or point to a guide with more detail?

For it being allowed, the CEO commented as such here. I realise it's not the best reference but I'm not searching through ToS during lunch haha https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20791605

As for how to, something like this (Maybe don't use this specifically in production, it was cobbled together from examples as a proof of concept).

It may be missing caching, depending on if/how Cloudflare caches the output of Workers. It's been a moment since I've looked at this project but I'm pretty sure it was caching files that could be cached (using the etag bit on line 22).

https://gist.github.com/cohan/1b154156c9c3d3b269581c940339ce...

You configure what `R2` in my example refers to in wrangler.toml

  [[r2_buckets]]
  binding = 'R2' #
E: Random thought you probably don't actually need to do this anymore, R2 has public bucket and custom domain settings now. I needed this for the CORS headers, as that was being a pita at the time

Re: Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

#118

Post by mhuffman »

erdaniels wrote: post #13
pkulak wrote: post #10

Break the terms of service, get mad and write a blog post. It's not even hidden in some legalese; they tell you not to serve majority image/video content _everywhere_ in the UI. All my tunnels are still running great, for free. I could not be happier.

I feel like as a paying customer a warning and migration deadline would have gone a long way.

Google and AWS don't have any issues posting the limits on their free-tier usage, I wonder why CF is so secretive about it?

Re: Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

#119

Post by internetter »

mhuffman wrote: post #118
erdaniels wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like as a paying customer a warning and migration deadline would have gone a long way.

Google and AWS don't have any issues posting the limits on their free-tier usage, I wonder why CF is so secretive about it?

I'd imagine vague rules allow them to give their customers leeway and handle infractions on a case by case basis. Like a popular open source project could get away with a cheaper plan, while on AWS they couldn't.

I think this particular instance is pretty cut and dry. If I understand correctly, they were just reselling cloudflare's services.

However, I DO think under that vague policy they should issue warnings for cases they seem inappropriate

Re: Ok, Cloudflare I am leaving

#120

Post by infamia »

lexx wrote: post #67
florbo wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Er, so do you run around and dive in pools when the rule boards posted everywhere explicitly list those as forbidden, then get mad when you get kicked out?

That's exactly what I do in pools. On my case though I haven't read the TOS. And I would really appreciate a warning. Also, as I have already said, it's not clear when and how you are considered an image proxy. There is no way to know or monitor it. Do you consider any website with images breaking the TOS, or because we have a separate subdomain with images makes this a problem.

> Also, as I have already said, it's not clear when and how you are considered an image proxy.

I don't understand your position, you called your own servers image proxies. So how could you not know they were image proxies?

Post reply on HN