This article seriously tries to cast doubt on CDN usage by poorly quantifying the performance of a couple services that don't even deserve the title "CDN". The saddest part is that these services not only are poor performing, but are even much more expensive than established services like Akamai (seriously, talk to them: they are much cheaper than what CloudFront users seem to believe).
> […]much more expensive than established services like Akamai (seriously, talk to them[…])
Therein lies the problem, most sites are in the long tail (blogs, personal websites, weekend web app projects) and it really doesn't make sense to go talking to a CDN; this is where CloudFront excels.
CloudFront, again, is much more expensive than services like Akamai. I you site isn't doing much traffic right now, but you think it will in the future, you can discuss contracts with them that have clauses like "Akamai will be my only CDN provider for the next two years" rather than having initial monthly commits. CDNetworks (whom I currently use, as I find even Akamai's "cheaper than CloudFront" too rich for my blood) also rolls forward unused data to future months during your contract. CloudFront, seriously, is very very expensive, and simply does not have enough nodes or functionality to actually be worthwhile as a CDN.
I'm not arguing with any of your points. I'm simply saying that the difference between 'sign up now' and 'contact us now' is huge for most developers. I don't want to discuss clauses and get approval, I want to type in my credit card and go.
4 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 23.0 ms ] threadTherein lies the problem, most sites are in the long tail (blogs, personal websites, weekend web app projects) and it really doesn't make sense to go talking to a CDN; this is where CloudFront excels.