I found this interesting: http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2014/04/28/meet-the-new-mr-money-mustache/
“We have also experimented with content distribution networks (CDNs), but
I found that even the best ones, configured by the most sagely experts,
broke too many website features to justify the capacity improvement.”
It’s like - add a comments feature to your site and suddenly CDNs fall apart? Not sure what else he could be talking about.
I’ve never used a CDN myself, but I think that most of them try to make it easy for you by having you just change out the domain for all the resources referenced from within your HTML (images, CSS, etc.) and keeping the server-relative path the same. Maybe that is a leaky abstraction somehow. I really don’t know.
I’ve used a CDN and it was my understanding they’re really only perfect for expensive, static things. If your logo literally never changes, a CDN is perfect because there’s no way it can be wrong. I’ve never heard of using a CDN for dynamic features so I don’t know how else it can break things.
Mirror Raided 1TB Hard Drives
1000GB Bandwidth
CentOS Linux 6.4 64-Bit
For those not familiar with Computerese, this is a relatively speedy setup for a single website at the time of writing
But Mr MM, “raided hard drives” is meaningless to speed!