Home > Paid Traffic Sources > Mobile

VPS vs CDN on MOBILE! (50)

11-08-2014 10:50 PM #1 anarchy (Member)
VPS vs CDN on MOBILE!

Sup stackers,

I've been hearing a lot about how it's a must to host your mobile lander on a CDN or at the very least host your images/static content on there.

I've been testing the same lander on a VPS vs a CDN, and the VPS has been consistently outperforming.

I'm using CloudFlare (free version) at the moment. Running +300k clicks/day. Perhaps it'd be best to upgrade to paid or swtich to a new CDN.

I wanted to know if you guys prefer hosting your landers on a CDN? If so do you guys have any you recommend?

Thanks guys, I appreciate it

11-08-2014 11:17 PM #2 karim0028 (Member)

i was just gonna ask the same question... I am seeing the same thing, CDN almost always being outperformed by my server (dedi)

11-09-2014 01:13 AM #3 hiro99 (Member)

Is the VPS in the same GEO as the traffic ?

A decent VPS local to the traffic is probably faster than "cheap" CDN's such as cloudflare.

Specific to cloudflare as well you need to be careful with security settings, too high and they show the captcha page to some visitors..

11-09-2014 01:19 AM #4 zeno (Administrator)

So your test is this?

1. 50% traffic to VPS through IP or domain X
2. 50% traffic to VPS, masked by CloudFlare through domain Y

CloudFlare is not a traditional CDN. In both cases this all runs through your VPS. CloudFlare is an additional layer on top so static content loading speed should be faster but you will often lengthen the time taken to connect to your server i.e. tracking/redirection speed, and can bring other issues on top of that + CloudFlare's overzealous security (just look at the attacks listing... will detect bazillions of threats that don't exist).

If you want to pit CDN vs VPS, don't do it with CloudFlare.

11-09-2014 01:28 AM #5 anarchy (Member)

hiro99: the vps isnt int he same GEO as the traffic, but the security settings or just CloudFlare in general might be the reason. thanks man, i'll keep an eye out for the security settings.

zeno: thanks for the info zeno, i'll start retesting with different CDN.

11-09-2014 01:36 AM #6 hiro99 (Member)

Have a look at cedexis as well, Zeno's original post on it : http://stmforum.com/forum/showthread...ty-data-Part-2

It can give you an idea of the best CDN for different geo's.

11-09-2014 02:57 AM #7 manny030 (Member)

Did you optimize the cloudflare caching setting?

11-09-2014 07:14 AM #8 vidivo (Member)

Has anyone tested cloudflare vs' cdn? Curious for the results on that one.

11-09-2014 07:46 AM #9 adrianegerrard (Member)

Hi.
I'm still a newbie. Can I ask what's the CDN & vps?

11-09-2014 10:31 AM #10 jack45 (AMC Alumnus)

I recently did a split test between my dedicated server and rackspace cloud CDN on my german mobile campaign; dedicated server had double the CTR roughly on all landers tested...

Is it best to keep the html file on the dedicated server and host all other static content on the CDN, or should it all be hosted on the CDN for ultimate speed?

11-09-2014 10:40 AM #11 jonemd (Member)

Hi Adrian,

CDN & VPS - Remember that Google is your friend (most of the time)

11-09-2014 12:56 PM #12 bbrock32 (Administrator)

Have a look at my old case study

http://stmforum.com/forum/showthread...ghlight=maxcdn

11-09-2014 01:13 PM #13 tapguru (Member)

@bbrock32 - golden, thanks for the link

Did ant if you guys test MaxCDN / CloudFare against Rackspace?

11-09-2014 01:20 PM #14 karim0028 (Member)

I'm on cloud flare now as well testing it out... I don't really see much of a difference against a well tweaked server setup... I'll keep testing it more

11-10-2014 01:23 AM #15 zeno (Administrator)

Originally Posted by adrianegerrard

Hi.
I'm still a newbie. Can I ask what's the CDN & vps?

http://stmforum.com/forum/showthread...light=glossary

As a newbie, one of your most critical skills is self-directed research.

If yo don't know what something is just Google it or search on the forum first. You'll need information-seeking abilities for the rest of your life.

11-10-2014 01:27 AM #16 zeno (Administrator)

CloudFlare is different to a normal CDN since it layers over your server, mediates the traffic, and caches content where possible.

I have found that page load times will on the whole go down vs a normal server (it's impossible to make up for the load speed advantage of static content from a CDN with tweaking once the distance gets too great) but will go up for some where the users already have very good connectivity to your server.

CloudFlare also lessens the load on your server so does have advantages in allowing a self-hosted tracker to cope with more traffic, though marginal since it can't help with PHP/database traffic and static content serving through Nginx isn't very resource intense if well tweaked.

I have found Rackspace Cloud Files to be the best solution in terms of price/ease of use/performance, at least vs Amazon. In terms of their PoPs (points of presence), it's hard for any CDN to really beat Rackspace since they use a fraction of Akamai's PoPs and they have the largest coverage of anyone. Even if Rackspace uses 2% of their PoPs... then they would probably still have more coverage than most CDNs.

11-10-2014 05:10 AM #17 servandosilva (Member)

I'd like to do some tests since I run a lot of traffic out of USA (Europe, Asia and Africa). Which one would you recommend to start with? Rackspace?
And if so, which plan would be the best to start?

11-10-2014 07:35 AM #18 zeno (Administrator)

Yes, Rackspace.

No plan - they are free and pay-as-you-go, so expect to pay only a few dollars per month.

11-10-2014 08:06 AM #19 omrikos (Member)

I must say that using Amazon s3 together with Cloud Front gives me amazing results and it is also pay as you go but for the first year you do not pay at all to try it!
Worth a shot.

11-11-2014 01:51 AM #20 servandosilva (Member)

Originally Posted by zeno

Yes, Rackspace.

No plan - they are free and pay-as-you-go, so expect to pay only a few dollars per month.

But would it help even if i'm using a Cloud VPS?
Or is the cloud vPS only for better stability (in case a node goes down) and scalability?

Thanks for your response, Zeno. You're da man!

11-11-2014 02:00 AM #21 zeno (Administrator)

What do you mean by a 'cloud VPS'? The world cloud is tossed around and rather meaningless.

Almost all VPS are 'in the cloud' so to speak. However, they virtually all exist in one specific location on one set of hardware.

You can get systems that are load balanced across multiple data centers in multiple countries but I can assure you this is 99% likely to not be the case when you are purchasing any typical VPS.

If you do have some geographically load balanced system, you will need your tracking systems or whatever you are using to be designed to use this - a tracking system for example interacts with a local database. If you make a campaign in your tracker, it makes it in the local database - but this has no effect on your tracker installed on some other VPS somewhere unless you have specifically engineered this to happen.

It's not a case of install it on a cloud VPS and it will just work across multiple servers.

So, in terms of serving static content, a VPS has no chance against a CDN. Because it's a battle of one physical location vs sometimes 10,000+.

11-11-2014 02:44 AM #22 dotcom (Member)

Here's my setup for extremely fast load times:

I use Cloudflare strictly for its DNS hosting (~3ms response times in Europe/US/Asia) and put the "Security Settings" to None.

MaxCDN is recommended for the fastest redirects and load times. If you're running traffic to Asia or Australia, you must buy the Add-On package for the additional CDN locations.

When using Cloudflare + MaxCDN, you must follow these directions to ensure 99.9% cache hits:
http://support.maxcdn.com/how-to-use...th-cloudflare/

If you're on a dedicated server or highly-spec'd VPS, your landing pages with the settings above will probably load in ~500ms or less.

11-11-2014 03:22 AM #23 kash50 (Member)

^^ Awesome share. Just checked my MaxCDN cache hits and it was around 68%. Made the changes above. Hoping this goes to 99.9% cache hits.

11-11-2014 04:19 PM #24 dotcom (Member)

Originally Posted by kash50

^^ Awesome share. Just checked my MaxCDN cache hits and it was around 68%. Made the changes above. Hoping this goes to 99.9% cache hits.

Yep, my cache hits were around 60% until I made the setting change. It's now 99.95% cache hits with 0.05% non-cache hits.

11-11-2014 04:26 PM #25 servandosilva (Member)

Originally Posted by zeno

So I fell for the features bullshit...
For the tracker i'm using Voluum, but for my landing pages I was looking at different options and ended up with a "cloud VPS" instead of a typical VPS because I read the load was distributed between different systems around the world, and because it was easily scalable (many cores and many GB of RAM). Also read that if the server requires maintenance or to be upgraded, I wouldn't have a downtime because since it's "cloud" it's already stored in many different servers around the world.

Is this correct or was I bullshitted into marketing stuff? LOL

Anyways, probably the best way to know if there's an advantage is to test, but since I'm using Voluum, the only thing that can be tested is my domain with the landers, right?

11-11-2014 11:42 PM #26 zeno (Administrator)

It would be best if you just link to the product/service you are using and we can tell you what it really does.

You could test a lander on your 'cloud VPS' vs the same lander on a CDN, provided the lander can function on CDN hosting.

11-12-2014 12:41 AM #27 servandosilva (Member)

Originally Posted by zeno

Many of the landers I use are HTML only, so yes, I could try them on a CDN. Here's the VPS I'm using: https://asmallorange.com/hosting/cloud/

11-12-2014 12:53 AM #28 hiro99 (Member)

Originally Posted by servandosilva

Many of the landers I use are HTML only, so yes, I could try them on a CND. Here's the VPS I'm using: https://asmallorange.com/hosting/cloud/

While I do like asmallorange for hosting, had 100's of sites with them, I think they are playing a bit fast and loose with the wording by using "cloud" there for their VPS...

As far as I can see it's still in their datacentre(s) and not POPs (points of presence) throughout the world. If that's the case USA performance will be good but degrading compared to "real" cloud for Europe > Asia > Australia >South America.

11-12-2014 12:53 AM #29 zeno (Administrator)

Yeah that's just a normal managed VPS provider.

There offerings are nothing special.

They have two data centers - one in Detroit, one in Dallas. So your VPS is just located in one location in the US.

11-12-2014 01:57 AM #30 servandosilva (Member)

Thanks for the feedback, guys. They made it look like it was a special VPS setup.
Going to try Rackspace in the next few days and will report back if there are interesting results.

11-12-2014 07:23 AM #31 zeno (Administrator)

Cool - also, again be sure to use their CDN (Rackspace Cloud Files), not any sort of VPS/server they offer (waste of money).

11-12-2014 07:29 AM #32 omrikos (Member)

Zeno, regarding Amazon S3: if i connect my s3 origin to cloudfront, will i need to use a different domain after for the CDN to work? Right now i'm just using the one in the bucket with the html at the end.

Am i'm doing something wrong there?

EDIT: Saw I already had a replay on a different thread..

11-13-2014 06:20 PM #33 anarchy (Member)

hey guys just wanted to share some stats from yesterday
around 8k impressions each
VPS - 337 conversions
Rackspace CDN - 340 conversions

i'm gonna keep testing and i'll keep you guys updated

11-13-2014 07:55 PM #34 bbrock32 (Administrator)

@anarchy

These look similar to my results.

I never managed to get any significant increase no matter what CDNs I used.

I guess having a super fast and tweaked server helps compete head to head with the CDNs.

11-14-2014 01:17 AM #35 lwpack (Member)

A little while ago I did some research into CDN's and CacheFly seemed to be generally regarded as the fastest CDN for just about any geo, both for unique and repeat visitors. The result was backed by a good number of studies, although I don't recall the websites that did the study. However, not surprisingly CacheFly is also one of the most expensive CDN's.

11-14-2014 01:56 AM #36 zeno (Administrator)

Originally Posted by lwpack

CacheFly does have a great network but I doubt that they will be the fastest in many situations, and certainly not the most cost effective.

The only CDNs that will truly be first in any geo are those from Akamai and CDNetworks, and they are not entry-level. Akamai generally takes the crown.

Of the CDNs we have access to more readily, no single one takes top position predominantly. They just don't have the PoPs to do it. Amazon CloudFront and Rackspace Cloud Files IMO will come closest as they use a large infrastructure.

In any case, I trust Cedexis as the data comes from real user measurements, not any specific site or report. It's unbiased data. A quick look suggests there's little point in using CacheFly over CloudFront, the latter being infinitely cheaper.

11-14-2014 02:09 AM #37 dotcom (Member)

I've found MaxCDN to be among the fastest and way more cost-effective than Cloudfront/Cachefly. One thing to note is MaxCDN uses purely SSD drives, and I believe no other CDN host does that.

Here are some comparison charts:

11-14-2014 04:38 AM #38 zeno (Administrator)

Wow, actually I just looked at CloudFront pricing - I had no idea they charged 10-25 c per GB!

That aside, I'm not sure about SSD storage options across CDNs, but I find that graph pretty surprising - i.e. unrealistic.

Don't know where it came from or where these 'real end users' are, but I doubt you will not see such a huge relative spread globally across those CDNs especially with Edgecast being at the top by so much.

Akamai being near the tail end there (footnotes aside) is obviously wrong, since they are #1 unequivocally in virtually every country on the planet.

Here's some global data from Cedexis showing mean HTTP throughput:

They all seem to be between 3-4,000 Kbps to me... other than Akamai (R) but including them is just not fair.

Average response time is also quite similar:

I'm sure MaxCDN and CacheFly are good, but I don't see them bringing anything revolutionary to the party especially not in T1 geos where every CDN has pretty sizeable coverage.

If you look closely at MaxCDNs pricing... they give you only a very limited number of US/EU PoPs and you'll have to pay out the butt to get HK/SG/Sydney/Tokyo which IMO is poor. In fact, they say they give you 12 core locations in US/EU - but their network page lists 53 in US/EU. Getting pretty short-changed there on PoPs, no?

11-14-2014 06:53 AM #39 hiro99 (Member)

Going to disagree a bit.. my bad

Based more on SEO experience than landing pages but I think the same applies.

CDN's shine when you have a single main site but want to target multiple (global) geographies, analogous to running one offer in multiple countries.

To "win" in any single country get the closest to your audience. I think CDN's loose a bit on the DNS lookup and "deciding" which server.

Small example, in Singapore. Amazon S3 (not cloudfront) will beat any CDN.

Asia in generally has limited POPs so if you are targeting one country, use the host, S3 etc, in that location.

USA maybe slightly different as there a significant distance coast to coast.

And, Akamai yes the best but I doubt the ROI for the cost would ever back out unless running volumes I could only ever dream off.

Their offering is not one price either, you have "add-ons", new one being ION etc that gets you up to thousands a month for a site doing 100K - 1M visits globally.

Singapore data : http://awesomescreenshot.com/04a3uknq6c I need to work out how to add images in posts!!

11-14-2014 07:36 AM #40 zeno (Administrator)

I wouldn't worry about DNS overhead for CDNs.

Caching is their bread and butter, it's what they do and at any one second of the day you can pretty much guarantee that a user from every ISP in every country is loading some content from your CDN supplier. So, the DNS results are going to be cached by ISPs in virtually all situations, giving very small lookup times.

One might argue that CDNs exploit DNS caching more than any other system on the planet!

11-14-2014 04:07 PM #41 dotcom (Member)

Originally Posted by zeno

I'm sure MaxCDN and CacheFly are good, but I don't see them bringing anything revolutionary to the party especially not in T1 geos where every CDN has pretty sizeable coverage.

If you look closely at MaxCDNs pricing... they give you only a very limited number of US/EU PoPs and you'll have to pay out the butt to get HK/SG/Sydney/Tokyo which IMO is poor. In fact, they say they give you 12 core locations in US/EU - but their network page lists 53 in US/EU. Getting pretty short-changed there on PoPs, no?

I used MaxCDN based solely on pricing, they're very affordable but with the downside being limited PoPs (like you mentioned). I took a look at CDN77.com, and it appears they're not that much more costly than MaxCDN. CDN77 has way more PoPs and is SSD-based too... Will have to give them a test-run.

I also came across Execeda.com, which appears to be an Akamai-based CDN catering to non-enterprise end users. They have an introductory pricing of $0.14/GB, which is pretty cheap for a network of that magnitude.

11-14-2014 07:35 PM #42 zeno (Administrator)

It's hard to find something perfect... some CDNs offer much nicer features and control panels for our kind of work but then lack coverage or are expensive.

I had a search for Akamai-based CDNs a while back but couldn't find much. Exceda looks much like a redistributor of sorts for Akamai offerings? I wonder how expensive they are though? Based on experience I'd expect their site acceleration tech and similar to require minimum commitments of $500-1000+ per month.

11-14-2014 07:48 PM #43 anarchy (Member)

Day 2 Results - this time each received around 17k impressions each
Rackspace CDN - 602
VPS - 576

11-14-2014 09:33 PM #44 shakedown (Member)

Another +1 for CDN77 here.

Back in May, I tested Rackspace, Wiredtree and CDN77 with real users and CDN77 won in several of my main geos. The tests were "conclusive enough" for me at the time and I just wanted to stop testing and start launching campaigns again. However, I decided to do some more thorough testing in the coming weeks, this time only Rackspace vs. CDN77 since the VPS (wiredtree) clearly lost last time.

11-15-2014 03:33 AM #45 zeno (Administrator)

I'm highly interested in seeing how MetaCDN stacks up.

Could it be our holy grail?

They say that they integrate "EdgeCast, Amazon, Fastly and MaxCDN"

That is a solid lineup.

Pricing isn't too bad if performance is there especially with performance-based routing: http://www.metacdn.com/cdn-prices

11-16-2014 06:31 PM #46 anarchy (Member)

Results over the course of a few days. 100k impressions each. Rackspace won out, but not by much. I appreciate your contribution you guys.

VPS - 3922
Rackspace CDN - 3955

11-16-2014 06:58 PM #47 zeno (Administrator)

Cloud VPS has nothing to do with a CDN, so a CDN will help just as much as if you were on any other VPS or dedicated server.

11-19-2014 08:58 PM #48 goatboy (Member)

Content Delivery Network (Akamai is the 800 lb monster and most expensive in the space) vs Virtual Private Server set up for you to run a specific app or site

08-04-2015 07:45 AM #49 mrchow (Member)

Originally Posted by anarchy

Results over the course of a few days. 100k impressions each. Rackspace won out, but not by much. I appreciate your contribution you guys.

VPS - 3922
Rackspace CDN - 3955

What things you hosted in Rackspace CDN? the whole lander? (html, images, css, js)
Someone please give me some explanation

08-10-2015 02:09 AM #50 phaeton_mka (Member)

Hi Zeno! Thanks for the feedback you have provided for this topic! I'm looking at Beyond Hosting and their VPS plans, looks like their 2048 plan is the most suitable but not sure if I should use them for CDN too as I've heard fairly good reviews on Beyond Hosting and not sure if I should venture on another provider like Rackspace for CDN.... I'm also looking to focus on mobile ads as a beginner. Would appreciate your thoughts on this!

Home > Paid Traffic Sources > Mobile