Current time: 12-19-2017, 08:25 AM Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Add CDN Provider "CDNetworks"
05-02-2011, 03:00 PM
Post: #1
Add CDN Provider "CDNetworks"
Can you please add the CDNetworks CDN to your list of supported CDN's? I have a CNAME setup to the CDNetworks CDN and your system is not recognizing the CDNetworks CDN as valid.

Thanks!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-02-2011, 11:13 PM
Post: #2
RE: Add CDN Provider "CDNetworks"
Can you send me a sample test result (or the url for the page)? I just need to see what the pattern is for the CDNetworks CNAME target.

Thanks,

-Pat
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2011, 03:27 AM
Post: #3
RE: Add CDN Provider "CDNetworks"
Hi,

We're running CDNetworks and it's recognized (we're running through their Panther plateforme, but were running through cdnetworks before, and it was recognized too).

http://ow.ly/4LmJu

In our case, we're running a CName for cdn.domain.com to n3.panthercdn.com

Best regards
david @ http://kbsd.ch
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2011, 08:08 AM
Post: #4
RE: Add CDN Provider "CDNetworks"
Hi,

What would be great is a setting before running the test to specify your own hostname that is a CDN.. Many smaller sites don't use a well know CDN. But instead setup their own smaller one on a cookieless domain. It would work similar to what is supported in ySlow, to modify a firefox setting and it will then identify those requests as CDN ones.

Thanks for such a helpful tool!

Ciao.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2011, 08:36 AM
Post: #5
RE: Add CDN Provider "CDNetworks"
Well, there's a difference between a cookieless CNAME and an actual CDN (they key part of the CDN being the distributed physical footprint). I'm more than happy to add any CDN's to the list as long as they are actually CDN's. The goal isn't for keeping cookies off of the requests but to reduce the request latency which you can only do with a distributed physical footprint.

If you have a site that doesn't justify or need a CDN (target market near the actual server) then just ignore the CDN check (I know, it's hard to see an F and ignore it but the checks are never gospel, there are always exceptions).
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-04-2011, 08:51 AM
Post: #6
RE: Add CDN Provider "CDNetworks"
Yes true, I agree and disagree Wink

Just some thoughts:

Two of the main goals (I have found recently) is in fact to:
1) eliminate cookies
2) use the fastest possible solution to deliver static content

Many modern apps have many (4-8) cookies, counting up a small but decent amount of size in cookies when multiplied by many many requests. Client upstream is typically much lower than downstream.

True, OSPF rules apply here, and closer is 'often' faster. But also CDN's (or whatever the term is for self run ones) typically utilize different configurations.. Some recent sites have as main webservers either apache/tomcat/jboss. Something not typically ideal for serving static content.

But what their CDS 'content distribution servers' run is more often nginx or lighthttpd.

I guess it would be nice for that to be recognized somehow (if possible)

Again,.. great job.. keep up the good work!
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2011, 05:40 AM
Post: #7
RE: Add CDN Provider "CDNetworks"
FWIW, I DO have a check for serving static content from a cookieless domain. It shows up in the checklist, it just doesn't have enough of an impact to warrant one of the big grades at the top of the main page. I have ~9 or 10 checks and Pagespeed runs > 20 different checks, the big grades are just the universal "fix these before you even think of looking at anything else" issues :-)

I would actually prefer to teach people how to read the waterfalls for doing the optimizations because once you get past the really basic optimizations things are usually going to be site-specific and you can waste a lot of time trying to get a perfect score and still not improve your performance (or site scalability). I know it's a stretch but I still think humans still need to be in the path for that.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)