Forum:CDN

Forums: Index → General discussion

---

We're now using a CDN for static resources. Requests will be up to twice as fast. Kudu (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

---

I see that you're using CDN77's worldssl.net for this. I use Web Of Trust (WOT) as a browser add-on to crowdsource reputation opinions before I allow third-party scripts to run in my browser. WOT advises that cdn77.com has a poor reputation so I have blocked it using NoScript. My Orain webpages now all look screwy, as one might expect, as you have moved the static content to CDN77.com. Can you give us more information about the CDN decision? AugurNZ ✐⌕ 04:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

CDN77 was chosen for its great number of Points of Presence (PoP), its apparent reliability, and its extremely low prices (2-2.5x less than competitors). Note that CDN77 does not manipulate the content like CloudFlare does: it just serves the content you would formerly access directly from Orain's servers. I don't see any reason not to trust scripts from our CDN. Kudu (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that Kudu. I'm very cautious about third-party scripts. I'll take your word about CDN77 and ignore the WOT reputation score. Now I just need to un-deny it in NoScript. In all my years of using NoScript, I've never done that before, teeheehee. AugurNZ ✐⌕ 23:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Here are the prices and characteristics for several CDNs:

• CDN77: $0.05/GB of traffic, free storage, $99 minimum (expires in a year)
• CDNify: $0.06/GB of traffic, free storage, $30 minimum, no servers in Eastern Asia or Australia
• CloudFlare: $20/mo, no traffic limit, free storage, no push
• CloudFront: $0.12/GB of traffic, free storage
• MaxCDN: $10/mo, 100GB traffic limit, free storage

They all do well in Cedexis' tests in North America and Europe. I think CDNify and CloudFront are the best options: CDNify is a little bit cheaper, but CloudFront has a more balanced network and the difference in price will be very small. Kudu (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

One thing I think we need to know if how much bandwidth we currently use monthly across the whole site, or how many loads of the static resources and work the bandwidth out from there (could be possible from our httpd logs) ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 10:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

IIRC, the bandwidth of the static content is something ridiculously low like 250MB/month. That's why I'm saying it doesn't need to be the cheapest per GB, since it'll still be very cheap. Kudu (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)