Take the 2-minute tour ×
Server Fault is a question and answer site for professional system and network administrators. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The small/medium sized online retail company I work for uses Akamai as our CDN for static images, but I'm wondering whether it might be hurting rather than helping and, if it's suboptimal, what we should be doing instead.

We get monthly traffic of about 3M pageviews and 400K unique visitors. We have 100k+ different static images that appear in our various web pages (several different images for each of several thousand products, etc).

The problem is that Akamai's servers are requesting files from the origin server (which we host ourselves) for about 40% of all browser requests. That means a lot of (in my view) unnecessary waiting for our customers: 40% of all requests have to make the round-trip between Akamai and our origin before returning to the customer.

Server TTLs aren't the issue; they're all set to 365 days. So it seems like either

  1. Akamai's edge servers aren't keeping our stuff in cache long enough before swapping it out in favor of content that gets higher traffic than ours, and/or
  2. there are so many Akamai edge servers (they claim 70K+ worldwide) that each server doesn't get enough traffic from our 450k monthly visitors to build up much of a cache of our files.

So I've started wondering whether we might be better served by a CDN with fewer servers, my thinking being that with fewer CDN servers, more of our images would be cached more often on each server, and would probably stay in cache a longer time without being swapped out. On the other hand, fewer servers probably means more latency for users who aren't close to one of the servers.

There are two Akamai-based options we're looking at but haven't pulled the trigger on (yet):

  • We haven't used their NetStorage service yet because there's a technical hurdle (which will be the topic of my next SF question if we go in that direction) and because 40% of the time there'd still be that extra round-trip between the edge server and the origin; it'd just be a round-trip inside Akamai's network instead of out to our separately hosted origin -- probably faster, but still a round-trip.
  • We don't pay for Akamai's optional tiered distribution service. That would probably alleviate the problem to a large degree, but (1) it's not cheap, and (2) again, 40% of the time there'd still be a round-trip between the edge server and its tier hub.

So my questions are:

  1. Do y'all think it would be better to have the files cached on fewer servers, at the cost of the extra latency for some users; or is latency a bigger issue than the origin round-trips?

  2. If we go with NetStorage, does anyone have any insight as to how long round-trips to the NetStorage "origin" typically take?

  3. Am I missing anything? What else should I be thinking about here?

share|improve this question
Please explain what "Server TTLs aren't the issue; they're all set to 365 days" means. Are you talking about DNS TTL? HTTP Caching? Please provide examples of HTTP request and response headers for content you expect to be cacheable. NB HTTPS content is not cacheable. –  symcbean Nov 30 '10 at 10:04
Akamai lets you separately set browser cache control (how long before browser revisits edge server for a file) and edge server TTLs (how long before edge server revisits origin for a file). We set browser caching (max-age) to 1, 30, or 60 days depending on the file. We set edge server cache TTL to 365 days for all files. So an edge server should only revisit our origin once a year for each file (unless we purge/invalidate). All that caching is working correctly; it's just there's too little total traffic - or maybe something's just not set up right. (We don't use Akamai for https content.) –  Aaron Nov 30 '10 at 16:46

3 Answers 3

up vote 2 down vote accepted

It's always better to base things on facts rather than supposition. Your hypothesis is that a CDN with fewer nodes would hit your origin less often. To test that, I would:

  1. Set up an account on multiple CDNs that do origin fetch but have a "super-POP" model. Amazon CloudFront, MaxCDN, and Voxel come to mind. CacheFly perhaps as well, although you cannot do origin fetch without a services engagement I think. LimeLight pioneered the "super-POP" model, but requires going through the sales song-and-dance to set up a test.
  2. Divert some statistically significant portion of your CDN traffic to those test CDNs. This could be as simple as a rewrite rule done n% of the time, but the "content mix" needs to be exactly the same for all CDNs. You can't restrict it to a subset of your static assets, since the number of static assets may also have an effect. Maybe keep 80% of traffic on Akamai for the test, and then do 5% for the other CDNs.
  3. Use your webserver logs to gauge how many origin hits you're seeing from each CDN versus the amount of traffic sent to each CDN.
  4. Use something like pingdom to measure worldwide response times for various static assets on each CDN. Offloading hits from your origin is one indicator of a CDN doing its job, but end-user latency matters too.

With these facts in hand, your decision will be easy. For what it's worth, I actually think you're right: Akamai might just have too many nodes for "smaller" sites.

Note that some of the smaller CDNs automatically use a tiered model for everything; they're just architected that way from the start. In such a model, a request to a particular edge node is routed to an "interior" node on a cache miss. The "interior" node then routes to the origin if it too has a cache miss. My own testing indicated MaxCDN worked this way (e.g. the first request for a file on the Amsterdam node did not always result in a corresponding origin fetch. So it must have gotten the file from somewhere else inside the MaxCDN network).

share|improve this answer
This is good advice; you get the big green check. FWIW, we eventually made the switch to NetStorage, which decreased the time to origin. After some initial bumps, things got better; I suspect the tiered distribution would help more, but we never pulled the trigger on that spending. –  Aaron Oct 17 '11 at 2:48
You could also probe Akamai edge servers directly for a given piece of content over a well-defined period (up to the TTL of said object) per server and measure how long it was a cache-hit by the edge. Akamai accepts certain headers to cache meta data such as cache-hit/miss. –  generalnetworkerror Aug 13 at 7:50

I don't work for Akamai but we do resell a lot of their services.

Have you taken a look at your CDN caching? If these images are rapidly changing, situation may be where nodes have received updated content while Akamai is caching the timestamps from others. Try clearing the cache via Akamai control panel.

Are there other items that are caching, strictly Images. Any CSS, Javascript?

Akamai has many available options helping optimize delivery.

Recently I was introduced into Strangeloop, they offer a compression service that reduces objects per page and saves as templates. This wouldn't be a replacement but rather something of interest.

Latency and caching benefit eachother together. NetStorage would improve performance.

Let me know if I can help, good luck!

share|improve this answer
Hi Nick. The images change only very rarely (hence the long server TTL). CSS and JS make up only a tiny % of the cached objects (less than 50 out of 100K+); does that matter? –  Aaron Nov 29 '10 at 18:55

You should definitely call Akamai support and give them an example of something that's not caching as expected. We had a similar issue and it was due to some headers we were setting due to a misinterpretation of the docs. You're paying them a pile of money for this; don't hesitate to call.

Akamai doesn't do "one hit per edge node"; they make a few hits to get it into their "cloud" and then spread it from there out to the edges.

share|improve this answer
Thanks Luke. (We're definitely talking to Akamai about it too.) Is your last comment true even without paying for the tiered distribution option? We see a couple thousand different Akamai servers hitting our origin server every day. –  Aaron Nov 29 '10 at 18:59

protected by Michael Hampton Jun 25 '13 at 18:33

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality answers, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site.

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.