[HN Gopher] Debunking Cloudflare's recent performance tests
___________________________________________________________________
Debunking Cloudflare's recent performance tests
Author : mcone
Score : 54 points
Date : 2021-12-06 21:07 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.fastly.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.fastly.com)
| redm wrote:
| I think statistics like these tests are easy to sway in your
| favor, hence why Fastly is responding. Its not clear that Fastly
| didn't do the same thing, but a good ole' CDN rivalry does make
| for a good read. Someone get more mud to sling.
| deft wrote:
| point #2 is silly. So basically your product is slower but its ok
| cuz its a beta only... Fine. But then cf did not mislead anyone.
| Your beta is slow.
| invisible wrote:
| Not really. Cloudflare could have used their rust
| implementation for doing a fair comparison, instead they
| compared a beta product to a stable product. It's not like CF
| didn't have a choice to make a fair comparison.
| jjeaff wrote:
| As mentioned in the article, Cloudflare expressly prohibits
| benchmarking their services in the tos.
|
| I think it's rather disingenuous for Cloudflare to publish their
| own benchmarks calling out competitors when they won't allow
| anyone to run their own tests and comparisons.
| jbergstroem wrote:
| In the context of "should I use Cloudflare or Fastly as my edge",
| I lean Cloudflare. That said, I enjoyed listening to the GraphCDN
| crew choosing Fastly[1] - one crucial feather in the hat being
| cache invalidation[2] (miss ya, Phil Karlton) - and it sounds
| like a solid choice.
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpmpTJc_SP0 [2]:
| https://graphcdn.io/docs/how-to/purge-the-cache
| breakingcups wrote:
| Cloudflare not allowing benchmarks in their TOS is very sketchy,
| that puts them in the same tier as Oracle.
|
| Cloudflare have pulled enough shady stuff now that they've fallen
| out of my favor. Their generous free product bought them a lot of
| community goodwill but their real face has been showing the past
| few years.
| gopalv wrote:
| > _We used a Wasm binary compiled from Rust rather than
| JavaScript. > We know support for JavaScript is important
| to many customers, but we're not yet satisfied with the
| performance of Compute@Edge packages compiled from JavaScript.
| That's why it's in beta. When a product is ready for production,
| we remove the beta designation.
|
| I can't really square the idea that the 50-150ms time-delays in
| question comes down to the actual programming language, but it is
| absolutely believable that a longer test reduces the median
| latency rather than a high load test for a shorter duration.
|
| Having said that, I would notice anything over 150ms in my
| clicks, but wouldn't care whether something took under 100 or
| under 50 - except that the lower the latency the less the scale
| needed to serve the same number of active users (it becomes a
| question of cost rather than response time).
| kailanb wrote:
| It definitely comes down to the language -- JavaScript is an
| interpreted language, which requires an engine. Rust is
| statically compiled and runs by itself.
| xwdv wrote:
| This vicious attack by Fastly on Cloudflare will not go
| unnoticed. IMO Fastly should prepare for the retaliation.
| kailanb wrote:
| Vicious attack? Or defending your place in the market?
| floatingatoll wrote:
| Based on their comment history, I interpreted this as
| unmarked-sarcasm slash pithy-witty driveby, that isn't meant
| to be taken seriously or contribute usefully to the
| discussion.
| Twirrim wrote:
| Cloudflare started it by attacking Fastly in the first place.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-06 23:00 UTC)