What are thoughts on putting an instance behind a CDN?

  • Max-P@lemmy.max-p.me
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don't do it, but for big instances like lemmy.world I'm sure it saves them a lot of money and improves performance drastically.

    Serving data from multiple locations with the current lemmy implementation is really hard, and bandwidth is really expensive. Even with an enterprise account, Cloudflare saves us a ton of money at work.

    Like sure, you can self host all of that but it's usually quite expensive.

    Just reducing the accesses to the pict-rs S3 bucket saves a ton of money, even if you end up using CloudFront which is also an AWS product.

        • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yea, ideally all these things should have pretty aggressive caching around them, I suppose a CDN could help lower their resource costs even more… but I think the vast majority of work will be retrieving dynamic data like posts and comments.

          • thestereobus@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah. Serving static assets is not a big deal with a decent web server. You can get servers with unmetered transfer and the CPU and memory for static resources is tiny. Main reason to use a CDN is latency.

            IF the static assets like images and video are being served by the application from other network sources or out of a database then a caching CDN would be a big win for sure.

  • Illecors@lemmy.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why would you put it behind cdn? Set up nginx caching and you'll be fine.