Hacker News Reader

Comment by jasoncartwright | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, it's really quick because there is pretty much nothing on it

I agree. Not impressed, frankly. Cloudflare workers is just even-more localized CDN, and the benefit is so tiny that it's not worth the investment nor maintenance costs. (I wrote extensively about this non-thing here: https://wskpf.com/takes/you-dont-need-a-cdn-for-seo). My site (https://wskpf.com), which has way more elements and, err, stuff, loads in 50ms, and unless you are superman or an atomic clock, you wouldn't care. same lighthouse scores as this one, but with no CDN nor cloudflare workers, and it actually has stuff on it.

TCP performance gets quite poor over long distances. CDNs are very helpful if you're trying to make your site work well far away from your servers.

I think the bottleneck is rarely CDN. Think about it - my server sits in Germany. My target audience is in the US. My latency to the west coast is 150ms. I can see it being a big thing in competitive online game, but for website load performance it's less than the blink of an eye. The real bottleneck is usually poorly configured page or some bloated JS.

Your site took over a second to load for me from Brazil. Are you sure CDNs are that worthless?

I do, because the 120ms latency that CDN solves is a drop in the bucket compared to the 2.5 seconds (desktop) or 8 seconds (mobile) it takes for the average website to load almost entirely due to un-optimized images and poor code (based on https://www.hostinger.com/in/tutorials/website-load-time-sta...)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com