
CDN/cloud download performance comparison (26 providers) - timf
http://blog.cloudharmony.com/2010/02/cloud-speed-test-results.html
======
lambda
Would be nice if they tested latency as well as bandwidth. Latency on small
requests can be quite important for hosting performance as well.

~~~
dminor
Latency in a CDN can also vary by how often something is accessed - frequently
accessed resources get cached closer to the edge - so it's really hard to do a
good CDN comparison through simple testing.

~~~
lambda
Well, if they are testing files that are only ever downloaded as part of the
test, then all of the CDNs will be on equal footing as far as caching goes
(assuming that they randomize the order that CDNs are tested in to try to
eliminate biases due to some people quitting before the test is over). Part of
what you would be trying to measure is how well the caching infrastructure and
strategies actually effect the latency seen by end users. If one CDN keeps
things cached on the edge longer, and one aggressively evicts things, that
will impact latency which is exactly what you would want to be measuring.

------
jeff18
These tables are just begging for a third-column: price. It's cool to know how
these stack up to each other, but in order to actually get any utility from
the article I'd need to go to 26 providers and see their pricing.

I would also like to see latency, which for many applications is much more
important than raw throughput.

~~~
_delirium
It's somewhat hard to compare price in a column, though, because they have
totally different pricing models. Some charge monthly fees for VPS slices
depending on their size; others charge by the hour, also dependent on the
size; some flat-price bandwidth up to some level while others charge for all
bandwidth by the GB; etc.

------
kierank
Limelight's performance was very surprising. The availability of PAYG Akamai
from VPS.NET was also interesting.

~~~
andrewvc
Makes me glad I didn't go with limelight as a CDN, they're also damn expensive
compared to the competition (at least last year when I was getting quotes).

------
modoc
Good info, however CacheFly plans seem to top out at 1,200 GB/month (unless
you want to pay overages), this seems really low. If you're running a site
where you really need a super fast CDN, it seems like you could burn through
1,200 GB very quickly. At SoftLayer I get 2 TB/mo per server, so I have some
sites that have 30+ TB/mo transfer allotted, and most of them push way more
than 1,200 GB each month.

Is there really a good use case for a CDN with such low capacity?

~~~
andrewvc
I was recently looking at CDNs, and the thing about CacheFly that I found
unsettling was that their admin interface looks like it was cobbled together
by an engineer, not a designer, around 5 years ago (which may be confirmed by
the 2005 copyright notice on it). While that's not what their core competency
is, it was just too unsettling to commit to a provider that can't provide a
professional interface to their clients.

See for yourself: <https://www.cachefly.com/admin/> . The pages inside the
admin area look even worse.

~~~
andrewvc
I'm not sure why I got down voted for this. How can you expect a provider to
perform their core mission well if they can't even get the basics right?

~~~
ableal
Some professional tools are downright ugly. Pretty is more important in the
consumer space.

To tell the truth, in some cases, if you make it too pretty, the customer may
suspect he's being sold consumer-grade crap ...

(I didn't downvote you, btw.)

~~~
andrewvc
I agree with you in general, but that only works when you can objectively
analyze a tool before buying / committing to it.

The CDN market is tough because things like reliability and service can be
impossible to measure till the shit goes down. The problem with providers in
the CDN (and hosting) space is they all sell you the same line of BS. We've
got the fastest hardware the most reliability, etc. They all have tests that
show that they're the fastest in some way, and they'll always tell you that
their caching algorithm is more than generous and perfect for you. They may
even tell you that their competitors are overselling or cutting corners.
You'll have no way to verify much of this really.

Basically, what I look for, after I'm sure the essential features are present,
is proof that a company is run by responsible smart people with a commitment
to their customers.

There's really no good way to do this, companies can seem fine when they're
trying to get you to sign, then turn into shit afterwards, but I do the best I
can with the hints available.

That said, the sales guy and sales-engineer I spoke to at CacheFly seemed
smart and professional. Their network sounded like it was reasonably
constructed. With the absurdness of their admin area, and their lack of larger
clients, I just didn't feel like I was going with a first class operation. I
could've forgiven one of those two, but put together, that was disconcerting.

------
moe
Why does someone go to these lengths and then only measures the least
interesting metric?!

Nobody cares about absolute throughput, unless your business happens to be a
download service. What matters is _latency_ (above all things) and streaming
performance.

------
petercooper
_The only major CDN we were unable to test is Akamai._

They didn't test NetDNA either. They're number #5 for "content delivery
network" and back up sites like mine (not famous, admittedly :-)), CopyBlogger
and Uservoice. They've worked great for me.

