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

Dropping Cloudflare for Bunny.net

jola.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 225 posts

Re: Dropping Cloudflare for Bunny.net

#191

Post by themafia »

senfiaj wrote: post #4

> It’s a single point of failure for the internet. Every Cloudflare outage ends up in the news. I hear this argument all the time, but I think it's more complicated. Firstly, if people used more diverse / smaller services the distribution of outages would change. While there will likely to be more frequent "smaller" asynchronous outages, many platforms can still break even when only one of their dependencies break. S…

Using a single provider is a single point of failure. It may be that this provider has lots of internal failure modes, but you're still one credit card problem or fake legal request or one mistake away from experiencing the primary failure.

If you actually care for the resiliency necessary to survive a provider outage you should have more than one provider.

Which means you should be running your own origin and using the simplest CDN features you possibly can to make your use case work.

Re: Dropping Cloudflare for Bunny.net

#192

Post by benhurmarcel »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #177
pier25 wrote: post #111

I'm in the process of doing this for a Spanish client because of the La Liga situation. Only using edge storage, DNS, and CDN so far but very happy with Bunny.

I had not heard of the "La Liga situation", but googled and what I learned was that La Liga is a Spanish football (soccer) team, and their players did a protest action about not wanting a match to be staged in Florida, and the team owners tried to say it was an illegal strike, but a court recently disagreed and said it was protected protest.... I still have no idea what any of this has to do with any clients moving f…

La Liga is the national soccer organisation, which organizes the championship. They force the ISPs to block Cloudflare during games to block illegal streaming websites. But then it blocks a lot of websites that have nothing to do with it, and there are games fairly often.

Re: Dropping Cloudflare for Bunny.net

#193

Post by pier25 »

jrochkind1 wrote: post #177
pier25 wrote: post #111

I'm in the process of doing this for a Spanish client because of the La Liga situation. Only using edge storage, DNS, and CDN so far but very happy with Bunny.

I had not heard of the "La Liga situation", but googled and what I learned was that La Liga is a Spanish football (soccer) team, and their players did a protest action about not wanting a match to be staged in Florida, and the team owners tried to say it was an illegal strike, but a court recently disagreed and said it was protected protest.... I still have no idea what any of this has to do with any clients moving f…

As an anti piracy measure, La Liga (Spain's biggest football association) was able to push the government so that all ISPs have to block Cloudflare's IPs during matches.

It's ridiculous.

Re: Dropping Cloudflare for Bunny.net

#195

Post by amar0c »

But 1TB of bandwidth with Bunny costs $10 while you can do tens maybe even hundreds of them for free on Cloudflare. EU,Privacy etc. to side, nothing can beat Cloudflare when it comes performance/features vs. price

Re: Dropping Cloudflare for Bunny.net

#198

Post by tamimio »

kugelblitz wrote: post #38

I use bunny.net for CDN and DNS. I don't like free offerings, because what if they decide to charge someday? What if someone decides "free is not feasible, we start charging $20 per instance now". I'd rather have a low fee now, a change from $2 to $3 is more likely and that's fine for me. But from free to not free is risky for me. I also like smaller, independent-ish ompanies that actually care about developers. That…

> free is not feasible, we start charging $20 per instance now

Same thing can be applied to low fees services. Look at bitwarden as a recent example, they doubled their prices overnight and hid the announcement in some useless blog post that no one reads, users found out later they are expected to pay doubles in any plan.. why? Because “that low price isn’t feasible we start charging $23 plus tax for premium now”

And the same things you will do to migrate to another when free -> paid you will do when paid_low -> paid_high if the pricing isn’t up to your expectations.

There’s no protection against this, it’s up to the business model change, investors, greed (aka scale up!), you name it, so regardless whether you are paying now or not, always have other options ready for when you need to abandon the ship.

Re: Dropping Cloudflare for Bunny.net

#199

Post by senfiaj »

themafia wrote: post #191
senfiaj wrote: post #4

> It’s a single point of failure for the internet. Every Cloudflare outage ends up in the news. I hear this argument all the time, but I think it's more complicated. Firstly, if people used more diverse / smaller services the distribution of outages would change. While there will likely to be more frequent "smaller" asynchronous outages, many platforms can still break even when only one of their dependencies break. S…

Using a single provider is a single point of failure. It may be that this provider has lots of internal failure modes, but you're still one credit card problem or fake legal request or one mistake away from experiencing the primary failure. If you actually care for the resiliency necessary to survive a provider outage you should have more than one provider. Which means you should be running your own origin and using…

Again, there is no simple answer. It depends on situations and resources. Some systems might rely on multiple services. If those services are independent, in such system this might cause more frequent failures which might still result in serious outages even when only one service fails. For those kind of systems a single service provider might be more preferable, because a single provider might coordinate things more efficiently while with multiple providers you might wait longer until each one fixes its problem. For example, system A depends on system B. If both A and B depend on Cloudflare and Cloudflare has 1 hour outage, both A and B will have 1 hour outage. But if A and B depend on different providers, the situation might be similar for B but worse for A. This is because for A each hour of outage in any of the providers means 1 hour of outage. In such cases each additional provider might be an additional weak link.

> If you actually care for the resiliency necessary to survive a provider outage you should have more than one provider.

Well, that probably means duplication. This might be too expensive in certain situations. Also some occasional outages might be not a big concern for some, such as most bloggers.

I'm not downplaying the downsides of centralization. Certain things should be decentralized if it's reasonable. But it's not always that way.

Post reply on HN