Re:The Onion cut 66% of their bandwidth by upstream caching ...
by hartror on Thursday March 25, 2010 @08:05PM
(#1219889)
If you read the entire thing (not just this select comment) you will find that they just re-engineered their site from Dupral to Django meaning they would have had this in place within days if not hours of discovering the bottle neck.
http://www.reddit.com/r/django/comments/bhvhz/the_onion_uses...
Re:The Onion cut 66% of their bandwidth by upstream caching ...
by john_onion on Friday March 26, 2010 @12:17AM
(#1220250)
Those Onion web guys must be pretty dense.
Re:The Onion cut 66% of their bandwidth by upstream caching ...
by jeff18 on Friday March 26, 2010 @02:22AM
(#1220394)
Pardon? I did not mean to offend you. I apologize.
Re:The Onion cut 66% of their bandwidth by upstream caching ...
by showerst on Thursday March 25, 2010 @04:03PM
(#1219345)
Those videos are most likely being served from a CDN.
Re:The Onion cut 66% of their bandwidth by upstream caching ...
by john_onion on Friday March 26, 2010 @02:10AM
(#1220387)
I can confirm that videos, articles, images, 404 pages are all served by a CDN. Our 404 pages were not cached by the CDN. Allowing them to be cached reduced the origin penetration rate substantially enough to amount to a 66% reduction in outgoing bandwidth over uncached 404s.
Edit: This is not to say that our 404s were not cached at our origin. Our precomputed 404 was cached and served out without a database hit on every connection, however this still invokes the regular expression engine for url pattern matching and taxes the machine's network IO resources.
I'm not sure which is more mindboggling... Spending 66% of their bandwidth and 50% of their CPU on serving these trivially cacheable pages or the fact that they didn't correct the problem when they were serving more than 5%.