To LOVELY Ashal: (FAST SPEED NOW!) Nix...CloudFlare is not likely doing more harm than good

[worik]

8 hours ago, Ashal said:

but hopefully not as bad, and the 2nd faulty server will hopefully be fixed soon.

? Thank you 

[DEMMERS]

I don't do much on LL other than lurk, so I'll ramble over here and allow anyone to make of what they want.


Cloudfare can be a restriction, a boon, or in times you don't notice it at all. The saying of, if it works once it works everywhere is no guarantee. Just because one website uses it without issue doesn't mean the entirety is overall the greatest. While Cloudfare is nice, it is like having a nice brick wall outside with your name on it. It helps protect your yard, and holds some cached information for anyone passing by, however the amount of information is based on your wallet. [Attached is an image of Cloudfare's Pricing, food for thought.]

An ideal website that hosts tons of user-made content can use Cloudfare, however it will take a decent wallet to maintain it for all users to be happy with the way it works. The alternative is to make your own Cloudfare using a network of different servers to handle each, and dedicated machines with all the backups one can afford and not to forget to ensure you have those servers spread out, so that the content is shared over a larger web. Why spread out? Well if it were all in one place, no amount of backups will keep it intact.

I lurk about and enjoy a good read, and several topics have been jousted forth with great intentions on various places an issue may lay. Goodluck with sifting through the information, and read on.


(Seriously, I put this here purely out of my own boredom.)