Hi,

In the past week, I've been looking for a hosting solution for my web design business. I also own several sites whose audience is spread in different countries so CDN seemed like the way to go.

I decided to try MaxCDN mainly for the low risk involved by their price, especially with their ongoing 29.95$ for 1TB offer. Anyway, here is my experience :

Setup was good and easy. Instant activation, easy pull zones creation. Then all you have to do is create CNAME for domains you want to serve through CDN. Once DNS were propagated, I configured my wordpress site for CDN through W3 total cache plugin. Again, they explain how to do it, so it was easy.

At this point I was nothing but purely satisfied : the website I tested loaded awesomly fast. Tests I made with different speed test services available online showed a dramatic decrease of page loading times. I really told myself : "why doesnt everybody use CDN? It's cheap and blazing fast." 200% satisfied, really.

Anyway, next morning, I test the website to tell myself again how happy I am to have switched to them, and I get a blank page with the following message : "you are hitting New York datacenter. I also had sometimes the same error message for Amsterdam message.

I wasnt upset : s*** happens, and I may have misconfigured something, since I'm far from a tech star, so I contacted their support. It was yesterday morning (saturday) so according to their website, they dont provide live but email support. I'm ok with that, but this is where things get ugly :

Basically, I got a first answer after more than 4 or 5 hours. This alone is bad but anyway, I was too happy to have someone dealing with all this mess. He first sent my 2 emails stating everything was working fine for him, which it's possible since we're not in the same are; After some time he started acknowledge the problem. He asked if I changed something to the CDN/domains settings. I answered him with a detailed list of the eventes (how I configured things, and what happened). But after that : NOTHING.

It's been more than 24 hours and my website is down. I checked with some friends in France and Belgium, it's the same. (I'm near Madagascar) I sent 2 emails after that and it's been 22 hours I havent hear from someone at Maxcdn. Oh, I did received an automatic email 16 hours ago informing me I'd receive support shortly, but still nothing.

So I'm really furious at them. They say on their website :

MaxCDN features a level of support never before seen in CDN(what a joke). Mo-Fr 9am to 7pm (PST) phone and chat support plus 24/7/365 email support is available by true CDN experts. Need assistance with an implementation? No problem, we can do that, and we won’t even charge you those thousand dollar setup fees other guys ask for.

Obviously this isnt true. The website I tested with them is for the launch of my new business and the first prospects I have are probably lost now.

You bet it guys, I'm more than unhappy. If my english allowed me to use the strongest word for "unhappy", I'd use it in red and size 200.

Maybe they have not added the config to their server.

Try readding?

Hi Whei,

readding? sorry for the noobness, but what is it?

Delete the pull and add again.

Delete the pull and add again.

That would be your best bet - chances are it'll clear right up.

Or just add a new pull zone and use it instead (last time I used MaxCDN they didn't appear to have a delete button for pull zones :o)

MaxCDN is a budget CDN provider - when you buy the cheapest of the cheap you do sometimes get what you pay for.


why doesnt everybody use CDN? It's cheap and blazing fast.


\slightly OT
If your site is low traffic a CDN will often times hurt performance as files won't stay on the edge POPs but get pulled from your server every time if they aren't requested often enough to stay cached on the edge.
/OT

Delete the pull and add again.

that's what I did, let's wait a bit to see what happens.


\slightly OT
If your site is low traffic a CDN will often times hurt performance as files won't stay on the edge POPs but get pulled from your server every time if they aren't requested often enough to stay cached on the edge.
/OT

The site Im testing gets low traffic indeed. I see there is an option to determine the time files can stay on the POPs. Does that fix the situation?

Btw, like I said, Im not tecchie at all, so when Maxcdn ask me to to "create a CNAME record for cdn.papayeprod.com to newpapaye.papayeprod.netdna-cdn.com", is that a proper CNAME configuration?

Nom Type Valeur Prio TTL
@ A 217.70.184.38 3 heures
blog CNAME blogs.vip.gandi.net. 3 heures
cdn CNAME newpapaye.papayeprod.netdna-cdn.com 3 heures
imap CNAME access.mail.gandi.net. 3 heures
pop CNAME access.mail.gandi.net. 3 heures
smtp CNAME relay.mail.gandi.net. 3 heures
webmail CNAME agent.mail.gandi.net. 3 heures
@ MX fb.mail.gandi.net. 50 3 heures
@ MX spool.mail.gandi.net. 10 3 heures

Well here is the update : I finally got someone at Maxcdn. Michael helped me put things back in order.

However, when I test the website speed through services available online, I got similar results as when I didnt use CDN. First time I got it working speed were blazing fast, now it's not impressive. Can someone please check www.papayprod.com and tell me what you think about it?

Where are you located and where were your static content located at before moving to maxcdn?

I'm in Reunion island, east from Madagascar. This website audience is in Reunion island and France. I also have websites whose audience is in the US.

The websites are hosted on a shared account at Justhost. I also have an account which server is in UK, closer to France. Do you think I should move the websites for french audience in the UK server? To me switching to CDN was enough already.

Thanks

Do you think I should move the websites for french audience in the UK server? To me switching to CDN was enough already.

Thanks

Latency UK-FR is ~ 5-10ms. I see lower latency between UK2/RapidSwitch-Paris (8ms) than OVH(Roubaix)-Paris (16ms). My "sort of CDN system" serves France from UK and the French server is just backup.

If the sites are small and low in traffic, I'd just get a shared hosting account close to each location if at all possible. Also, if you are not running anything latency sensitive, then having the site be a few ms further away than on your current CDN won't make a difference.

If the sites are small and low in traffic, I'd just get a shared hosting account close to each location if at all possible.

Works very well but must pay attention to the ToS. Some hosting companies don't allow mirrors and this kind of usage in shared hosting and VPS.

Thanks for your answers guys !

I'm not sure I understand though : my website content is on a server hosted somewhere in the US, then served through CDN. Would you say it's ok this way, or it would be better to have the content hosted on my UK server, then deliver it with CDN? (for french audience)

The question here is do you need a CDN?

well it is a good question indeed. The thing is :
- I got websites whose audience is spread in different countries (US, UK, France, Indian ocean)
- I want my pages to load fast. Shared account + CDN looks again like a winner as far as price is concerned.

I may be wrong but from what I know, CDN seems like a great choice, doesnt it?

It's true that no sites have high traffic. Maybe 500/day for one of them. But again, they're young.

btw, the site I asked you guy to check above is not papayprod.com, but www.papayeprod.com

I may be wrong but from what I know, CDN seems like a great choice, doesnt it?

It depends on CDN infrastructure and technology.

Is MaxCDN eating their own dog food? What do you see running just-ping (http://www.just-ping.com)for their site?

Compare with Akamai.com ...

well, I see a lot of packet loss, but I'm not tecchie at all, so I dont know what it means. Plus, they have mashable and other big sites running their service. That has to mean something, right?

well, I see a lot of packet loss, but I'm not tecchie at all, so I dont know what it means. Plus, they have mashable and other big sites running their service. That has to mean something, right?

Sorry but if you can't realize what is going on that 2 just-ping results you are buying a CDN using emotion not reason. To argue "acme uses the service then must be good" is called falacious argument. Note I'm not saying the company is bad just it prefers to not reveal its infrastructure.

Sorry but if you can't realize what is going on that 2 just-ping results you are buying a CDN using emotion not reason. To argue "acme uses the service then must be good" is called falacious argument. Note I'm not saying the company is bad just it prefers to not reveal its infrastructure.

look man, while I do realize I'm not a pro, my decision was made for the two reasons I described above. Plus, as they offer 30 days money back guarantee, there was no risk involved.

The next step was to ask you guys what you think of my site performance after CDN was implemented, so that I get pro input about it.

Thanks for your posts I guess, but you did not answer my question here :

does my website performance looks good to you?

Oh and I miss the "compare with Akamai" comment. Let's say my shared account is an old fiat. Within my budget, Im trying to buy something better, like an entry level BMW. But you want me to compare it to a Rolls royce phantom??? Of course it's better, I know that, but I cant pay for it.

What's interesting however is did I actually get a BMW for my money?

Thanks for your posts I guess, but you did not answer my question here :

does my website performance looks good to you?

Actually I did answer it.

It depends on CDN infrastructure and technology.

And said your CDN provider is not using their CDN to host their site -- they are not eating their own dog food. Running just-ping for their site shows requests from any part of the world are answered from a single location. And I did suggest you to run just-ping for Akamai.com to show you what happens when a CDN provider uses their CDN service to host their site. Simple like that. No old Fiat, no BMW, no Rolls Royce. I'm trying to say to you this: if your CDN provider doesn't have infrastructure where your customers are, or accurate technology to determinate where your customers are, you may eventually go better with a local cheap shared hosting plan than using their service.

I get it now you make a point. So basically it means Maxcdn doesnt have POP's where they claim they have?

If so it's crazy. Comparing with akamai or edgecast is indeed striking. Are there other CDN providers on a pay as you go basis, when you pay only for traffic and nothing else?

So basically it means Maxcdn doesnt have POP's where they claim they have?

No. It means they are not using their CDN to host their own site.

Comparing with akamai or edgecast is indeed striking.

Just-ping MaxCDN shows what is the latency for a site hosted at a single location. Akamai and Edgecast just-ping results show the latency effect of having several PoPs around the world.

But latency is not everything. You need throughput. You need DOS protection. Redundancy. Resilience. Stats. You need the CDN correctly identifying where the visitor really is located. E.g. A CDN may have a POP in Singapore but unwisely serving content from London to a Singapore visitor just because the visitor is using a DNS cache service located in London instead a local cache.

Fact is not all CDNs are created equal. It is not a commodity thing. As I said before, infrastructure and technology plays a lot. An "acme" CDN can be excellent for a region and very bad in another. Others are just Barbie's CDN. :D

No. It means they are not using their CDN to host their own site.

Just-ping MaxCDN shows what is the latency for a site hosted at a single location. Akamai and Edgecast just-ping results show the latency effect of having several PoPs around the world.

Without speaking to MaxCDN's network performance or support, as I've never used them, I have read a few things about them. MaxCDN is one of the newer anycast based CDNs (CacheFly & BitGravity are two others off the top of my head), and not geo DNS based like most CDNs. Hence it will always show the same IP address irregardless of location.

Without speaking to MaxCDN's network performance or support, as I've never used them, I have read a few things about them. MaxCDN is one of the newer anycast based CDNs (CacheFly & BitGravity are two others off the top of my head), and not geo DNS based like most CDNs. Hence it will always show the same IP address irregardless of location.

Absolutely right.

Look at ping times - if it's sub-100 ms in both Europe and the US on the same IP that's a dead giveaway it's BGP anycast.

Guys this is off topic regarding the OP now, but can you please help me sort this out?

my website is served by Maxcdn, I do see their url in my source code. However, Yslow and other speed test online tell me my files are not cached. I cannot understand this specially : (Yslow)

There are 52 static components that are not on CDN.

Guys this is off topic regarding the OP now, but can you please help me sort this out?

my website is served by Maxcdn, I do see their url in my source code. However, Yslow and other speed test online tell me my files are not cached. I cannot understand this specially : (Yslow)

That should be self-explanatory: 52 static components (images/stylesheets/layout/javascripts) are not on (being served by) the CDN (because you don't have them linking through a CDN on your site).

That should be self-explanatory: 52 static components (images/stylesheets/layout/javascripts) are not on (being served by) the CDN (because you don't have them linking through a CDN on your site).

Yeah I know, I feel ashamed.

However, like I said, it's linked to maxcdn indeed, as I see netdna url in my source code. Anyway, for Yslow, you have to indicate which CDN you're using, and I did so. But for other 3rd party tools out there, they still say my website is not cached.

Any idea?

Absolutely right.

Look at ping times - if it's sub-100 ms in both Europe and the US on the same IP that's a dead giveaway it's BGP anycast.

The ping times of www.maxcdn.com are compatible with a single location in California. BTW many CDNs are using anycast but usually they have different IPs for regions of the world.

The ping times of www.maxcdn.com are compatible with a single location in California. BTW many CDNs are using anycast but usually they have different IPs for regions of the world.

How do an "anycast CDN" has different IPs for the regions of the world? Can you provide name some?

Unless you referring to "anycast-DNS CDN" providers.

How do an "anycast CDN" has different IPs for the regions of the world? Can you provide name some?

Sure. Edgecast.

Singapore, Singapore: Okay 31.7 31.8 32.0 117.18.237.20
Amsterdam2, Netherlands: Okay 0.9 1.0 1.1 93.184.220.20
Florida, U.S.A.: Okay 40.8 41.0 41.5 72.21.91.19
Amsterdam3, Netherlands: Okay 0.5 0.6 0.7 93.184.220.20
Hong Kong, China: Okay 35.3 38.4 40.2 117.18.237.20
Sydney, Australia: Okay 0.5 1.2 3.0 117.18.237.20
München, Germany: Okay 8.2 8.5 8.9 93.184.220.20
Cologne, Germany: Okay 4.5 4.7 5.1 93.184.220.20
New York, U.S.A.: Okay 9.9 12.1 26.0 72.21.91.19
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Okay 0.5 0.6 0.8 93.184.220.20
Stockholm, Sweden: Okay 25.5 25.5 25.6 93.184.220.20
Santa Clara, U.S.A.: Okay 5.0 5.2 5.4 72.21.91.19
Vancouver, Canada: Okay 4.6 4.8 5.0 72.21.91.19
Krakow, Poland: Okay 30.6 30.7 30.8 93.184.220.20
London, United Kingdom: Okay 1.0 1.6 1.7 93.184.220.20
Padova, Italy: Okay 28.8 29.7 35.8 93.184.220.20
Austin, U.S.A.: Okay 29.8 29.8 29.9 72.21.91.19
Amsterdam, Netherlands: Okay 0.4 0.5 0.5 93.184.220.20
Paris, France: Okay 0.4 0.4 0.5 93.184.220.20
Melbourne, Australia: Okay 13.3 14.6 17.4 117.18.237.20
Shanghai, China: Okay 45.8 46.3 47.1 117.18.237.20
Copenhagen, Denmark: Okay 15.2 15.3 15.5 93.184.220.20
Lille, France: Okay 7.1 7.8 8.4 93.184.220.20
San Francisco, U.S.A.: Okay 2.8 3.2 3.7 72.21.91.19
Zurich, Switzerland: Okay 14.1 14.4 14.7 93.184.220.20
Mumbai, India: Okay 103.4 107.7 130.0 117.18.237.20
Chicago, U.S.A.: Okay 0.3 0.4 0.8 72.21.91.19
Nagano, Japan: Okay 5.1 5.1 5.4 117.18.237.20
Haifa, Israel: Okay 77.0 79.7 84.3 93.184.220.20
Auckland, New Zealand: Okay 180.8 182.7 183.6 117.18.237.20
Antwerp, Belgium: Okay 5.4 5.5 5.8 93.184.220.20
Groningen, Netherlands: Okay 4.3 4.9 5.4 93.184.220.20
Moscow, Russia: Okay 46.5 46.6 47.0 93.184.220.20
Dublin, Ireland: Okay 13.5 14.7 21.4 93.184.220.20
Oslo, Norway: Okay 24.0 24.4 28.0 93.184.220.20
Kharkov, Ukraine: Okay 42.8 43.0 43.2 93.184.220.20
Manchester, United Kingdom: Okay 7.7 7.9 8.8 93.184.220.20
Vilnius, Lithuania: Okay 30.3 30.5 30.9 93.184.220.20
Ashburn, U.S.A.: Okay 3.8 4.0 4.0 72.21.91.19
Bucharest, Romania: Okay 35.4 35.9 36.4 93.184.220.20
Bangkok, Thailand: Okay 32.6 32.7 32.8 117.18.237.20
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Okay 176.5 179.4 186.2 117.18.237.20
Jakarta, Indonesia: Packets lost (10%) 14.9 15.2 15.9 117.18.237.20
Cape Town, South Africa: Okay 150.3 150.8 151.8 93.184.220.20
Glasgow, United Kingdom: Okay 11.4 11.5 11.7 93.184.220.20
Lisbon, Portugal: Okay 53.5 53.6 54.0 93.184.220.20
Chicago, U.S.A.: Okay 1.5 1.5 1.9 72.21.91.19
Dallas, U.S.A.: Okay 1.3 1.4 1.8 72.21.91.19
Buenos Aires, Argentina: Okay 162.2 162.3 162.6 72.21.91.19
Istanbul, Turkey: Okay 46.7 47.0 47.6 93.184.220.20
Gdansk, Poland: Okay 29.6 59.9 120.1 93.184.220.20
Beijing, China: Okay 208.2 350.7 583.7 72.21.91.19

Is MaxCDN eating their own dog food?

I suspect that MaxCDN would give you the exact same answer you got from Cloudflare when you made the exact same comment about their website.

FWIW, I've tested MaxCDN and L3 on my website and MaxCDN is basically faster across NA and Europe. Their control panel is also quite a bit nicer and the cache hits are higher as well.

I suspect that MaxCDN would give you the exact same answer you got from Cloudflare when you made the exact same comment about their website.

I suspect MaxCDN hardly would answer the same BS to justify not using their own CDN. :D

Hello Friend IM on Lima Perú
your website: http://www.papayeprod.com/
load the Text, but the IMG doenst load

Example:

http://wac.3cee.edgecastcdn.net/803CEE/test-papaye//wp-content/uploads/2011/02/logo1-e1298879796635.png

http://wac.3cee.edgecastcdn.net/803CEE/test-papaye//wp-content/uploads/2011/02/slide-pas-comme-les-autres-final1.png

Hi InternetPeru,

thanks for the heads up. Could you please test again and tell me if it loads?

I had some minifying problems, which should be fixed. Maybe this was due to that. (at least I hope)

I suspect MaxCDN hardly would answer the same BS to justify not using their own CDN. :D

Actually you're probably right. They'd probably point out that all of their css, js, and images are served from cdn.maxcdn.com. And if you use just-ping on cdn.maxcdn.com, it's pretty obvious that the content is being served up from their cdn.

So yes, they do eat their own dog food.

Hello Massa974
Ive checked today and The Images LOAD OK :D.

and Video Load OK