"Real World" Performance Comparison of CDN (Content Delivery Network) Providers
Originally published on May 16, 2010 by Dirk Paessler
Last updated on March 03, 2022 • 11 minute read
Introduction: How Providers Were SelectedFirst we have created accounts with a selection of 24 CDN and cloud computing providers. We chose those who did not require entry barriers and offered pay-as-you-go pricing. We did this together with our friends from cloudharmony.com (we leverage each other's accounts for CDN testing). Thank you, guys! We wanted to know how much faster it is to use dedicated CDNs for website assets compared to serving these assets directly from the website's web server. That is the reason we not only tested CDN providers but also cloud computing (PaaS) providers.
Lesson #1: Using Any CDN is Better Than Not Using OneWhen we compared the CDN sites with the cloud computing based sites we found that almost all CDNs we have tested are faster than all servers hosted by cloud computing providers. Even if you are using the fastest cloud server in our test, using a CDN for website assets will likely slash asset load times by up to 50%, especially for users outside the U.S. Using a CDN is the second recommendation in Yahoo's "Best Practices for Speeding Up Your Web Site".
Lesson #2: First Requests Are Much SlowerWhen we looked at the data we found that for all sites the first request is always the slowest. The initial requests took up to twice as long as the 9 subsequent requests. Reasons for this behavior are:
- The hostname must be resolved into an IP using the DNS system (and this can take even longer for a CDN than for normal systems) before the server can be contacted for the first time
- Some CDNs support http/1.1 keep alives (so for subsequent requests no new http connection must be created)
- The edge servers of the CDNs in most cases have to fetch the file from the origin server (they are then cached for subsequent requests)
Our Actual MeasurementsIf you have a website with heavy traffic from one region then your assets are likely already cached in the edge servers of a CDN because they were recently requested by a previous website visitor (most CDNs keep a file in the cache for 24h). For websites with only little traffic from one region the chance to have website assets already cached on the edge server closest to you becomes smaller and smaller. This must be taken into account when we compare the average request times of the CDN providers: The list of the fastest providers look different for "fastest initial request" and "fastest average request". First the results from a global perspective:
Lesson #3: Which Provider Wins The Comparison?Well, to some extent it depends on the amount of traffic your site receives from its target region. If your site has enough traffic to have your assets likely stored in the CDNs' edge servers for most users, look at the upper graphs. If you have less traffic and most users will likely cause the CDN to pull the asset from the origin server, look at the lower graph which is sorted by the request times for the first request. Anyway, the following 4 providers all hold solid positions in the top 10 of all four lists. They provide the best overall performance from a global and a north American perspective and I would consider all of them solid choices to serve website assets through a CDN:
- CacheFly CDN (#1, #2, #1, #4)
- SoftLayer/Internap CDN (#3, #3, #2, #4)
- GoGrid/Edgecast CDN (#4, #2, #10, #3)
- Google Appspot (#1, #6, #2, #8)