Comment by gnz11
8 hours ago
I get 381ms/401ms on first load and not the claimed ~30ms. I'm not really sure what the point is here though. CDNs and browser cache headers work? Static sites are fast to paint?
8 hours ago
I get 381ms/401ms on first load and not the claimed ~30ms. I'm not really sure what the point is here though. CDNs and browser cache headers work? Static sites are fast to paint?
Yeah, I'm not seeing fast uncached times either. I usually hit Cloudflare's Miami datacenter, which is only about 200 miles and very low latency. But I'm seeing 200+ms on this site right now.
Most cloudflare products are very slow / offer very poor performance. I was surprised by this but that’s just how it is. It basically negates any claimed performance advantage.
Durable objects, r2 as well as tunnel have been particularly poor performing in my experience. Workers has not been a great experience either.
R2 in particular has been the slowest / highest latency s3 alternative I ever had experience with, falling behind backblaze b2, wasabi and even hetzner’s object storage.
got 12/31ms and 6/13ms cached so Cloudlfare muat not be that slow in Europe after all... ;)
I also got initial load times in that range.
The site should be faster, though. I’ve had a small CF workers project that works correctly with quick load times.