this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2023
11 points (86.7% liked)

Asklemmy

43747 readers
2316 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

What are thoughts on putting an instance behind a CDN?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] Caaaaarrrrlll@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Probably everything that's static like images, JavaScript, css

[โ€“] thestereobus@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Just have a cache invalidation strategy.

[โ€“] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[โ€“] thestereobus@lemmy.ml 1 points 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.