[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)