Slashdot Mirror
Google Announces Google CDN
leetrout writes "Google has introduced their Page Speed Service which 'is the latest tool in Google's arsenal to help speed up the web. When you sign up and point your site's DNS entry to Google, they'll enable the tool which will fetch your content from your servers, rewrite your webpages, and serve them up from Google's own servers around the world.'"
how long until we just rename it to the "googlenet"?
"Wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the life-long attempt to acquire it." -Albert Einstein
Better than Skynet or is it the same thing?
yesterday we read about Akamai, apparently origin of 15-30% of the web traffic. Google's service seems to be similar to Akamai's offering, but free of cost.
Tomorrow Akamai, the day after tomorrow the world?
So, it rewrites my HTML, but what about my PHP (Perl, Python, your_scripting_language_here)?
"Lame" - Galaxar
I presume they'll be inserting ads into your website!
For now...
Google says that Page Speed Service will be offered for free to a limited set of testers right now. Eventually, they will charge for it, and pricing will be “competitive”.
Also is there any sites left that are static? Could maybe be useful if you get a lot of traffic and seperate out static stuff (images, scripts, css, whatever) and dynamic stuff into two domains .. but for most of the internet?
I wonder how soon before this is used in elaborate spear phishing attempts to bypass a lot of trust issues.
"The page looks like it came from Google..."
Would that make a Wifi access point a G-spot? I can see the support calls "try pinging your G-spot"
So in 2010 they tell webmasters speed is now a ranking factor. A few months later they launch a paid for service for webmasters to improve speed. Cynical? Me? Possibly...
According to the FAQ, it does not support Flash, HTTPS, IPv6, or third-party hosted sites (http://code.google.com/speed/pss/faq.html#handlehttps). HTTPS is a deal-breaker for me...
Most of the content I see is quasi-static. The actual page content does not change often enough to warrant a complete page regeneration on each request. Complete page generation for each request is really only justified if there are either too many pages to write them all to a static cache at the same time or if the pages are very dynamic (like very active forum threads or other dynamic data that needs to be delivered "fresh").
http://www.moonlight3d.eu/
It is not free of cost, it is free for testing and prices will be announced later
This seems like an amazing simple solution for the biggest bandwidth hogs on my servers--the images. But, it seems like it's not set up to perform in this role satisfactorily. In the FAQs, it looks like they recompress images. I'm pretty sure I'd never want another site to monkey with my, or my clients', images. An elegant and nearly transparent way to install a CDN this may be, but unless they are willing to never ever mess with my content, I don't think this will work for me. At this point move along, there is nothing to see here.
Monitor bandwidth usage on IIS6 in real-time: http://www.waetech.com/services/iisbm/
This is why I am using CloudFlare.
Somehow I trust them more than Google.
Slashdot needs Geekcode | Can anyone recommend any good SCIFI? My tastes: Foundation, Startide Rising, CITY, Ringworld,
Not sure if anyone has heard of it before, but Opera has had a similar feature built in for a while called Opera Turbo, which compresses pages on their servers before they are downloaded to the browser. It's also how Opera on the iPhone works, because of Apple's restrictions.
After millions of years, Sex2.0 is still in beta? This is worse than Duke Nukem.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
I would do a WHOIS first. You can't be too careful these days.
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
Would this have google take all DDOS hits and not my server? Sounds good.
Nice astroturf attempt, Sergei.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
Holy shit, 6 out of 7 respondents to the GP (all but anredo) completely missed the point. [insert standard complaint about slashdot going downhill].
Web pages with script are not static, and caching the HTML script output does nothing. Server-side code generally has to be run per-visitor. Akamai has all sorts of crazy custom XML to specify which portions are static.
Setting up a proper CDN for the modern web is more complicated than just redirecting some DNS entries.
Would be interesting to see how they can use the content after downloading and what kind of rights on the content you are giving up. At the very least you have given Google the "right" to do analysis on all traffic to your site and the content of your site; whatever that entails.
If what you say is correct, then nobody will use it.
But somehow I have trouble believing that the customer would get nothing out of this. Even if it's only faster delivery to an end user , that is a very real and very tangible thing.
It's just the next Wave of features from their Labs.
SYS 64738 NO CARRIER
And while Google has quite a few strategically placed datacenters around the world it's hard to get closer to the user than Akamai which has servers in probably 85% of the worlds large POP's.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
I'd be okay with giving to give anyone who cares to ask a comprehensive list of my interests. Unfortunately for Google and advertisers, they only get my interests, not the ad revenue.
Apple is the one who has the little padded cells. Google have improved the internet, and probably even the whole tech industry the most out of any company in the last decade. There are a whole lot of benefits that have come our way - easily the best search since 1998, gigabytes of free inbox space, free online office suite capabilities, a popular and open mobile OS etc. A lot more benefits than Apple have provided. They made MP3 players popular, and then capacitive touch phones with swooshy interfaces.. that's about it. Microsoft have given us.. well, I can't think of anything to be honest.
which is totally what she said
with metered internet caps, the speedup must be removing a lot of cruft from pages- thereby reducing the usage-- maybe not as much as say netflix's reductions but certainly enough to be useful for low limit cell data plans...
something that shaves a tenth the time must shave at least half that in bytes....
in my life I've authored webpages using wysiwyg editors that had an enormous amount of cruft.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Then I can see it now, just like godaddy pulling people's domains due to I.C.E. and the many many reports of legit domains being yanked and not given back over the goofups.
I can see same happening to google, say you have a site with opinions and content that government doesn't like or google doesn't like, they will just yank it offline without notification.
they already do that with their blogger service. I used to have a domain name pointed to their blogger service they offered domain hosting for free through blogger, but my site was shut down for having objectional content and I was using it to critique and log I.C.E. and godaddy behavior. Even had a large section on the Feds and ICE were demanding Mozilla pull the mafia plugin for firefox and mozilla publicly refused and still do.
Yet google yanked my page for objectional material.
so yea, you go ahead and trust google and use this service, then if your site has any content they do not agree with be ready for it to disappear.
T-1000 (beta)
...don't expect your page to show up in search results above other sites that have signed up.
how long until we just rename it to the "googlenet"?
That's not what you call it now?
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Complete page generation for each request is really only justified if there are either too many pages to write them all to a static cache at the same time
Would an online shopping site with 80,000 products count? The product photos probably would though.
or if the pages are very dynamic (like very active forum threads or other dynamic data that needs to be delivered "fresh").
Would an online shopping site that displays which products a given user has recently viewed in this shopping session and what items are in the shopping cart count? Or possibly each page of product search results.
I'd say that traffic is more static than ever. With more and more websites using JS to update the content - instead of doing a full page request - the amount of dynamic data is very small.
In fact, with proper caching (and HTML5 has some nice features for that), current webpages can actually be faster on dialup, by transferring 2KB of a JSON list instead of a 300KB HTML page for each update.
Dilbert RSS feed
You're thinking of this story about CloudFlare.
You say the benefits only go one way, but aren't the users receiving more and more free services?
If you don't like the trade-off of seeing ads for those free services, you don't use them. How is this arrangement deceptive or evil? Just because they're big doesn't mean they're some nasty conspiracy.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
So, perhaps I missed something: Where does it say that the compression will be lossless?
There are tools to convert still GIF images to indexed PNG images, which are smaller except in a tiny minority of the smallest images. There are tools such as pngout, OptiPNG, and pngcrush that losslessly recompress the image data in PNG files and strip non-essential metadata. There are also tools like jpegtran that recompress JPEG files by trimming out Exif metadata and thumbnails, making the Huffman (entropy coding) tables more efficient, and deciding which "progressive" coefficient order produces the smallest file.
But to reiterate your question: Where does it say that Google will be using tools like these?
yep, check your ping times versus google - cloudflare rocks!
Get a web developer
Funny how all of the slashdotters are talking about privacy issues instead of this service's potential to disrupt the paid CDN industry. I wonder what Akamai thinks about this development? Or the folks at Inktomi (now part of Yahoo, I believe) for that matter?
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Yeah, I can't imagine cloudflare is particularly thrilled about this given that they had been discussing their technology with google in the past to improve optimization etc. That said, cloudflare has a free option, google does not (and at this time cloudflare has better response times than google under many conditions)
Get a web developer
Well, the problem is that even if you choose not to use their services, others will, and the general state of things is shifted more and more towards the world depending on 3 or 4 companies. So Google owning most of the world data and Internet services it is not necessarily evil now, but it will certainly narrow the options for everybody in the future.
yesterday we read about Akamai, apparently origin of 15-30% of the web traffic. Google's service seems to be similar to Akamai's offering, but free of cost.
Tomorrow Akamai, the day after tomorrow the world?
My thoughts exactly. Akamai will be pretty threatened by this, but I'm not sure what they can do about it other than offer superior service.
I wonder if Google will try to buy them out, though -- Akamai has lost about half of its stock value over the past three quarters for some reason.
Such a move would definitely cause alarm, though. I personally would not feel comfortable concentrating so much of the internet in one company. Single points of failure are bad.
actually it does.
Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
Ever since I started using Request Policy (a Firefox extension) I've noticed that severan sites use request to another domain that looks related but end in cdn, example. www.penny-arcade.com makes requests to pa-cdn.com, and there are many other examples of such.
To me it sucks because if too many sites start requiring google-cdn.com I might as well stop using Request Policy, and no I don't use google.com for my searches.
But... the future refused to change.
Except in the areas that putting data together enables humans to do more with the data.
And Google has been pretty good about trying to make data more accessible to everyone on the planet. Again, not very evil.
Unless you refer only to your private data, and again Google is one of the rare companies that doesn't have private data out to anyone. AOL, Yahoo, Microsoft, Facebook, etc. do hand your private data out to other people. When Google makes inroads into their markets, they're actually taking market share away from companies who do try to lock you into proprietary systems and sell your data.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
There have been too many dumb posts...not that that is too unusual...but really its not that hard:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_delivery_network
dimes
Of course once copyright law has been expanded to give sole rights to broadcasters, google will own all your stuff because they are hosting it and broadcasting it to the world.
At what point are we going to just throw our hands up and allow google to control every aspect of our internet experience?
So far:
-Dominating search
-Branching off into the world of ISPs (with their new fiber in Ohio)
-DNS
-Hosting/CDN
-Browser
-Social Media
-Image hosting
-Email
-Chat/Video/Phone
The way things are going, they will literally become the internet. Everything single page request you make will involve google in some way...
As it stands, I'm pretty sure 90% of the websites I go to have at least one js request, whether it be from adsense or analytics...
Having a single corporation controlling the internet scares me. Don't forget, Google is a corporation and cares more about profit than anything else.
MABASPLOOM!
Well, the problem is that even if you choose not to use their services, others will
So you don't get to feel part of the IN crowd?
It's not really the same service. Services such as Akamai serve mostly static content. Google's service optimizes the pages on your website as they are served, even dynamic pages. It basically takes over your website, which many people won't want. It will actually be competing with other similar services such as Cloudflare and Incapsula (both of which I tried and both of which still have some pretty serious issues - enough for me to leave them). If Google does a good job with a competitive price it just might run such companies out of business.
What does using Google's DNS servers imply, traffic-sniffing-wise? Are they monitoring at all? Not that my ISP isn't monitoring, but somehow I don't mind that. I'm wondering more about Google monitoring my traffic in relation to my online identities.
nothing.
An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
I RTFA (yeah I know) and checked out the service.. there was a comparison site so I entered one of my web site's URL. Waited as the test ran and it turns out my site direct is 4.6% FASTER then the optimized Google proxy.
Go figure.
PPN
Yeah...
Google gets free hosting / bandwidth from most of the ISPs in the world because they want to reduce their bandwidth bill. Google container? What did you think they did with that tech?
95% of people watch 5% of the content... THAT will come from the container....
So if Google hosts your data there, then there is a good possibility you will be just as close if not closer than Akamai. With the increases in CPU / HDD space, why not?
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
Google Page Speed is like CloudFlare, which is an easy-to-use, free, sort-of-CDN/web-proxy with rewriting rules. I've been using it for a few months and haven't noticed any problems, and CloudFlare seems more matures. Each offers unique features: CloudFlare has security features to prevent some attacks and bots, while Google has some unique rewriting rules and sharding.
Google runs hundreds of large and varied services, including their own CDN, already. I think they can handle it.
and pricing will be âoecompetitive"
Indeed, I'll bet it will. Competitive with AWS? They don't say that you won't need to have a site of your own, but if they're hosting you, why would you?
And it'll probably pay for itself, as the decrease in latency that you receive will improve your search ranking.
--
$tar -xvf
Now with the "I'm Feeling Lucky Eh" button!
But somehow I have trouble believing that the customer would get nothing out of this. Even if it's only faster delivery to an end user , that is a very real and very tangible thing.
I just ran their test on a page from my web site. The page contains a flash photo presentation with accompanying music (still waiting for a non-Flash-based tool of comparable features and ease of use; nothing even remotely close exists). According to webpagetest.org the original page loaded in 2.4 seconds, while Google's "optimized" version took 21.3 seconds. Neither of them actually loaded the Flash presentation properly. Is this because Google dislikes Flash or is it a problem with webpagetest.org?
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
Umm no thanks.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
How can this be used for more targeted ads you ask? Quite simple really. If they host the content they have every right to scan the content. Lets take images for example, we know they have the capability of doing a full image search. They scan their hosted images add tags to them then every time a visitor goes to your site Google will record how many page views you get/record the client IP. This IP can be later used to connect to a Google account, thus providing more targeted ads in your subsequent searches. We all have to look at the big picture. I can only see Google's stocks rising.
Or you could actually look up how a CDN works.
Instead of cutting out bytes, they serve content from geographically closer servers. This allows lower latency, and distributed load, with means faster page loads and better response to the end user.
Watch for Penguins, they eat Apples and throw rocks at Windows.
Well whoopee for you. I'd be more impressed if you'd written (if that's what the Americanism "authored" means) web pages that had an enormous amount of cruft, using a text editor. That would be showing serious dedication to generating cruft.
Using a cruft-generating machine to generate cruft is about as impressive as standing on a beach holding a broom and saying "I've decided to let the tide come swooshing in".
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
If the flash file loads just fine when you visit the page you tested, then there's obviously a problem with webpagetest.
Microsoft have given us.. well, I can't think of anything to be honest.
How about the most popular operating system in the world? The most popular office suite in the world? A PC UI that doesn't suck ass (yes, I'm implying that OS X is ugly and unusable)? The best OS for PDAs (by today's standard, Windows Mobile sucks, but it was the best back in the day). In later years, they revolutionized console gaming with the Xbox and the first major online console gaming service. And now we have Windows Phone 7 and the Metro UI which is basically an orgasm shooting directly into your optic nerves via theoretical syringes. And, perhaps most importantly, they gave all the Linux wannabes something to sling shit at.
Call me a shill or whatever it is you guys call people these days. Microsoft is not a company I adore, but they deserve some respect for how they have advanced personal computing over the last 30-odd years. If it wasn't for ol' Willy Gates and Paul Allen I don't think we would be even close to where we're at today.
Windows and Office were around before 1998.
Actually, I'll agree that Windows Mobile was the best for a while, I used to use it long before iOS came out, and I stuck with it until Android came along. They just let it stagnate though because that's what MS do when they're the only game in town.
Xbox may have done online gaming, but I hardly consider that "revolutionary" considering I'd already been gaming online for years before it. Evolutionary perhaps, but not revolutionary. Consoles such as the Dreamcast and PS2 had online gaming too.
We'd be a lot further ahead without Windows' effective monopoly on the OS market. It's taken a shift to mobile computing to break the stranglehold and start some innovation again.
which is totally what she said
Windows and Office were around before 1998.
What makes 1998 relevant?
Actually, I'll agree that Windows Mobile was the best for a while, I used to use it long before iOS came out, and I stuck with it until Android came along. They just let it stagnate though because that's what MS do when they're the only game in town.
Same, and true. My last phone before my Droid X was a Samsung Omnia. WM6.1 was really showing its age at that point and I was ready to chuck my phone at the wall on several occasions.
Xbox may have done online gaming, but I hardly consider that "revolutionary" considering I'd already been gaming online for years before it. Evolutionary perhaps, but not revolutionary. Consoles such as the Dreamcast and PS2 had online gaming too.
Well perhaps "revolutionary" is too markety and buzzwordy but I was unaware of Dreamcast's online capabilities, and the PS2 required an additional modem part and not many games actually supported real online gameplay. Xbox Live was revolutionary in that it provided a framework that any game could use to provide online play and in which any gamer could use a single login and a single monthly fee to facilitate online play with any game on the console. There wasn't even anything like that (that was particularly successful) for the PC until Steam came around a full year after the Xbox was released.
We'd be a lot further ahead without Windows' effective monopoly on the OS market. It's taken a shift to mobile computing to break the stranglehold and start some innovation again.
There isn't a monopoly when there's competition. Microsoft is ruthless, but there has always been competition, and it's quite visible in various Windows and Macintosh releases. Just compare their releases and you'll see them taking ideas from each other over the years. Don't blame Microsoft just because nobody else had the drive to get their own new OS released. It would have been extremely difficult, but if there ever was something with enough innovation to stir up new competition, that would have happened.
Well, I was talking about 1998, maybe I didn't make it all that obvious though:
There are a whole lot of benefits that have come our way - easily the best search since 1998
1998 was when Google came out, and since then they've done a lot more for the tech world than Apple and MS was my point. 1998 also happens to be the year when I switched to using PCs rather than Macs and Amigas.
Since the desktop space is so established, "innovation" is not enough to switch people over - unless they are not tied down in any way by established Windows only applications. But basically hardly anyone is like that. Home users are tied to their games, business users are tied to office and design applications, etc. Any change of OS needs to be gradual and compatible. WINE and virtualisation are helping a lot with that now, but the results still aren't perfect.
The way I see it is that things started opening up when Firefox came along and put a stop to the "this site requires IE6" garbage. Having websites built on actual standards has allowed us to develop all kinds of cool cross-platform stuff, and for those of us that are happy to game on consoles that means we can use any OS we want now. MS were quite clever to get into the console space really - they must have seen this coming.
which is totally what she said
Will my webpage suddenly become inaccessible and point to an "Account suspended" page?
also specifically optimizes the html & the images in the page, reducing the file sizes, keeping my assertion valid.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random