Talk:Content delivery network

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Commercial CDN list[edit]

Commercial CDN list was not an advertisement - many people don't understand the difference between CDN / Web Host / Cloud Storage, etc. List helped people understand *who* a CDN is. I agree descriptions were not needed as many used this to advertise their services. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pullboy11 (talkcontribs) 16:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Commercial CDN software was a advertisement for the group that posted. Believe this is not a area for that?

Not more or less commercial than the CDN's mentioned in the Commercial(!) CDN section.

I agree with the proposal to merge the mobile CDN pages into CDN. It does not warrant a separate topic; can easily be integrated into the CDN section. With respect to the commercial discussion above, the goal in Wikipedia is to integrate information about major suppliers of technology in a factual non-commercial fashion. The list of suppliers clearly supports the goal; the longer promotional descriptions would appear to move beyond that goal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MentalForager (talkcontribs) 15:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Question: What constitutes a "Traditional commercial CDNs"? Only providers with wikipedia pages? After I added fastly to the list, user Barek came in and removed all CDNs with external link calling them link spam. What is the procedure to add CDNs to the list that don't have Wikipedia articles yet? CDN77, fastly and Yotaa CDN IMHO fall into "Traditional commercial CDNs". I know CDNs. What I don't know well is the correct etiquette at Wikipedia so as to not be called a linkspammer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.41.134.95 (talk) 17:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

BundesDatenAutobahn, the forgotten CDN from 1995[edit]

This new definition of CDN does not appear to what I have ever heard before - is this verifiable? From the articles - does not seem relevant - but, I don't speak German fluent enough to research it properly.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.107.21 (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr Lerner, funny I am actually a reader of Mr Rayburn's Blog, so I found out about your edit in the blog rather than in the watchlist of Wikipedia. Sorry to come back to you so late, I was quite busy recently. In 1995 the German-speaking Internet suffered from massive tromboning as ISPs would seek a fast link to the USA and only much later look into peering each other, that's why a group of young ISPs grouped together to share their websites. Mirroring technologies were deployed and mechanisms for redirecting readers to the closest copy of a website were developed, the rudimentary beginnings of a CDN software suite of today. Since Europe's largest weekly Der Spiegel was one of many clients hosted on this network of web servers, you can't say it wasn't relevant. Should be quite correct to call this the historically first content delivery network of the Internet. Of course it was hardly noticed outside the German-speaking dimension, but does that make it any less relevant? Irony has it, that once peering became established, people stopped seeing a benefit in a CDN, so a couple of years passed until websites became complex enough for CDN offerings to thrive. Maybe the BundesDatenAutobahn was just not smart enough to choose a better name and expand into the international market. Still, they were the first ones out there. Kind regards, lynX (talk) 19:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

2008[edit]

If you want to name commercial CDN operators here, why not name CDN software solutions as well??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.240.196.110 (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

2006-2007[edit]

Isn't this confusing three separate ideas?

  1. Streaming networks
  2. CDN services such as Akamai (non streaming)
  3. ECDN, which is just tools to build your own CDN.

Also the various corporate histories seems questionable at best.

--Ctdean 21:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


Gavinstarks 23:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - the corporate histories are questionable and misleading. A full history needs to be researched that at least includes;

  1. Audionet -> Broadcast -> Yahoo Broadcast
  2. RealNetworks itself
  3. BBC

and a raft of other "CDN's" that existed before iBeam(!) - there are also tons of "patents" in this space

I propose that this entry should be pruned to describe just the acronym, with links to "streaming"/etc. and remove all commercial links.

User:Guest 13:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

"A more recently defined and robust solution is provided by the Open Pluggable Edge Services (OPES) protocol".

I disagree with OPES being more robust than ICAP: there is still no real commercial/open source OPES service demonstrating this while there are several iCAP services in production => I suggest to remove "and robust" therefore.


90.149.8.217 (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Amazon S3 is not a CDN, so it shouldn't be listed as one.

Red links[edit]

Red links are links to Wikipedia articles that do not exist.
It is hard for editors to know which companies are notable. One idea we have used is to Wikilink only to Wikipedia articles that already exist.
Also, in a list of companies, a company should only be in a listed if:

  • It has a Wikipedia article, or
  • A reliable reference is cited to document its notability. Company press releases are not reliable refs.

Just provide a verifiable reason for your edits, don't get too upset. Thanks.
Please discuss here anything about this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Colfer2 (talkcontribs) 21:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, right now the section "Current Market Overview" has a list that specifically cites a "Tier1" report by the 451 Group. So do not add or delete from that list without rewriting the surrounding text that cites 451. - Colfer2 (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Terrible article[edit]

This article is quite rife with incorrect tone, improper grammar, and (most importantly) original research, unverifiable claims, jargon, contradictory information, and questionable accuracy. I'm not really familiar with the subject matter enough to clean up the article, but it really needs some attention. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

P2P stuff[edit]

I edited the section on P2P CDNs. It contained inaccurate claims and false assumptions. The text I put in there comes from a report on P2P for the EBU and from my own experience with video signal/data delivery over P2P. Rafamiga (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

"Even though P2P actually generates more traffic than traditional client-server CDNs (because a peer also uploads data instead of just downloading it) it's welcomed by parties running content delivery/distribution services." Highly inaccurate. P2P does not create more traffic due to peer uploading. The same data would be uploaded in the client-server CDN by the server, hence equal amount of actual data is transferred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.223.76 (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Grammar / English[edit]

I've started editing the poor use of words in paragraphs, trying to hammer it into something that at least makes sense in English.

SimpleCDN[edit]

War against SimpleCDN and Cachefly by Highwinds and Edgecast - removing SimpleCDN and Cachefly from list of CDN providers. Will continue to replace SimpleCDN and Cachefly to list of CDN providers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akamman567 (talkcontribs) 20:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what war you refer to, but See also sections should not contain redlinks. Haakon (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The additions need to meet Wikipedias content guidelines, in this case showing how the additions meet WP:N. Also, repeatedly re-adding the links without first resolving the notability issue could result in the links being submitted for admin to consider adding the link to the Wikipedia blacklist - or could result in your violating Wikipedia's policy at WP:3RR, which could result in your account being blocked. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I have gone through and will continue to refine and add to the SimpleCDN article. As I have pointed out many times before, the SimpleCDN article contains *more* references and notable items than CacheFly and Highwinds Network Group. Both of those companies are listed, and survived their deletion requests. The CacheFly article basically contains a list of customers. Anything that I can do to continue to improve the SimpleCDN article I will do, and appreciate suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akamman567 (talkcontribs) 04:38, 14 January 2010

Already discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SimpleCDN. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 04:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Threats of disruption;
Accounts
--Hu12 (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

SimpleCDN is a Content Delivery Network. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OI87 (talkcontribs) 06:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

GoGrid is not a CDN, they are a reseller of Edgecast[edit]

GoGrid is not a CDN, they are simply utilizing Edgecast's CDN.

http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/111309_GoGrid_EdgeCast_Partner_on_Cloud_Hosting_and_CDN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.63.69 (talk) 15:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You're abusing Wikipedia as a battleground for marketshare. Please cease. Haakon (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the article? GoGrid is not a CDN, it appears it is you who is abusing Wikipedia as a battleground for market share. The facts are the facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.10.63.69 (talk) 16:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You keep adding your redlink to the See also section. Please cease. Haakon (talk) 16:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge material from Web acceleration[edit]

I'd like to suggest merging the material from Web acceleration into this article. Some of it might also fit into Web accelerator (I'm not sure - it seems to be more related to CDN's, but I'm not an expert in this field). After that's done, I'd be inclined to redirect Web acceleration to Web accelerator. EastTN (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Broken Link / References-16[edit]

I'm trying to correct a broken link and you are undo it to the previous edit. Still there is a broken link and you doing nothing about it. (net even deleting this part, just undo my addition). great job with the broken links guy. appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.168.57.19 (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

trimmed a small amount of advertising[edit]

I trimmed out the following text from the section that describes how a CDN operates. This information can be included in a list of commercial CDN products, but otherwise, it is one-sided and appears to be advertising. "CDNs may be implemented using commercially available software, with Aflexi, Inc., and Cisco Systems being prominent vendors, but larger CDNs usually run on custom platforms. Many web platforms include tools for integration with a CDN, such as the W3 Total Cache plugin for the WordPress platform." Nickmalik (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Grammar and Spelling Corrections Needed[edit]

I logged in to change "enrolment" to "enrollment" in last paragraph of Federated CDNs subsection, but looked it up first and was surprised to see "enrolment" is accepted in at least some quarters. I still think it should be changed, but left it as is and decided only to point it out in case my preference is more narrow than I think.

Additionally, the last sentence of the previous paragraph (still in Federated CDNs subsection) doesn't parse for me. I don't know enough about what it should convey to fix it, but it needs fixing by some who does.

Don Hammond (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Payment basis and typical costs[edit]

What about some information on the typical basis of payment?

For example, many content distribution or delivery services have a monthly platform fee.

Often, a certain amount of transit (e.g. 200 GB or 1.5 TB, etc.) is included with the platform fee.

Then, there is usually a tiered per GB transit rate for data over and above that included in the platform fee.

Some providers call the platform fee a minimum commitment, but it is effectively the same.

Also, a one time set up fee is common.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.249.247 (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Notable CDNs[edit]

Both Google (Google Hosted Libraries) and Microsoft (Microsoft Ajax Content Delivery Network) have CDNs that serve a high volume of script content. I couldn't find articles on the Wiki to point to either one, but their omission from this article seems to be an oversight worth looking into. -Draeth Darkstar (talk) 13:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)