[aclelland]

I think that when CF say unlimited bandwidth they really mean it. I manage a domain on the business level plan for a domain and I pushed over 1PB through it in January. Not a single complaint from CF and no sales calls pushing enterprise tier.

They haven't clarified their file operations costs yet though. That could get pricy but will more than likely be cancelled out by the egress savings for most use cases.

[Aea]

Not saying your experience isn't true, but I've heard horror stories of accounts being disabled for using too much "non-HTML" bandwidth, even on business level ($200/month) accounts (at the single digit TB level). The limits seem to be arbitrary and ill defined.

CF may be great technically, but I personally wouldn't use them without an enterprise agreement in place. Bandwidth should be cheap, but cheap does not equal free.

Unless I had an enterprise agreement in place I'd rather work with a vendor that has a well defined usage-based pricing. I have a low appetite for risk, and usage-based pricing aligns incentives properly IMHO.

[aclelland]

Yes, you are right that an enterprise agreement is probably the safest approach and it's definitely something we have looked into since the beginning of the year.

In our case, one of our games DAU went pretty crazy last Christmas which resulted in a huge increase in players (who all need to download hundreds of MB of data). Maybe if it'd continued for many months the situation would be different and that angry email from CF would have eventually arrived.

[breakingcups]

Yeah, that's why I haven't dared put them in front of my B2 buckets, even though they have the Bandwidth Alliance.

[jonny_eh]

> I personally wouldn't use them without an enterprise agreement in place

That would depend on the use case I'd assume.

[corobo]

How long ago was that?

[Aea]

Came across these 3-4 years ago when I was doing research on whether CF would be viable for a previous company.