Comments on: CacheFly vs. Amazon S3

By: Nag

Nag — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:11:17 +0000

Hi,
Did you try Speedera. I have implemented it for a site for a big vendor. It is pretty good.

your static content will be served by the servers which are closest to the user all around the world.

For a user in China the static content will served by servers in china.

Cheers, Nag

By: Joik

Joik — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 12:22:11 +0000

There are plenty of other smaller CDN’s comparing to Akamai and others with great rates I believe. Any experience with http://www.valuecdn.com ?

Thanks
Joik

By: Mark

Mark — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 01:02:51 +0000

CacheFly is up to 10 POPS, with an 11th to be added soon, none of which will result in a rate increase, for anyone concerned.

By: senor

senor — Mon, 04 Jun 2007 14:37:29 +0000

We’re using both cachefly and S3 on projects and we’ve been happy with both. S3 has a simple web service interface where we can readily publish static content (that is added to extremely often) via the web application as opposed to cachefly which publishes using FTP interface and seems better set up to serve static content that doesn’t change that often (think large FLVs, CSS, JS, SWF, etal). The simple ability to CRUD objects via application on s3 is definitely a big advantage.

Anecdotally, we’re seeing latency on s3 of up to 500ms but mostly less than 100ms for 10kb objects. Way more than acceptable for our purposes so far, but certainly depends on your application.

By: nathan

nathan — Thu, 31 May 2007 20:25:20 +0000

We are researching the actual throughput and response times from Amazon. Has anyone found anything of the sort?

By: Redneck Techy

Redneck Techy — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 23:24:52 +0000

Well even though this posting is a little dated I thought I would put my two cents worth in on it. I just started using S3 recently and I couldn’t be happier so far that is.

This may be because I have a rather small site and it does not see the amount of traffic that your site see’s. But I have really noticed a lot less latency since switching.

As far as Catchfly goes they look to be more expensive and the fact that if you don’t use little or no bandwidth you still pay the same amount seems to be a real seller for me and S3.

By: beth

beth — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 20:04:46 +0000

Hi Bob, I’d be interested in speaking with you more about this. Care to email me?

Thanks,

Beth

By: bawbzor

bawbzor — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 02:25:35 +0000

Never heard of Bitgravity - what’s your experience with them to be able to rank them right up there with AKAM.

By: leftboom

leftboom — Fri, 15 Dec 2006 16:26:12 +0000

I notice you say that Bitgravity is a “teir 1″, obviously Akamai is top of the line, but isn’t Bitgravity brand new to the game or am I missing something?

By: bob

bob — Wed, 13 Dec 2006 18:34:24 +0000

If you’re talking about the off-topic comment about a totally unrelated SVN server being down, no, that wasn’t S3. S3 doesn’t do subversion.

However, the whole post is about S3’s latency sucking hard and S3 having significant downtime. So yes, S3 does go down.