[yellowapple]

> It is about excessive resources/bandwidth usage.

Then the policy would focus on that rather than micromanage the format of the data using those resources/bandwidth. Again: bytes are bytes.

> why such a fuss

Because a policy as nonsensical as "no non-HTML files allowed" artificially limits the usefulness of CloudFlare for precisely zero legitimate reason. I ask again: does wrapping a video in a blob of JavaScript fix the bandwidth issues associated with hosting videos? If I have a 10MB MP3 downloaded 1,000 times v. a 1MB HTML/CSS/JS static site downloaded 10,000 times, what difference does it make?

[archi42]

The difference is in the amount of cache you need. In one case you save 10GB per 1MB of cache, in the other just 1GB per 1MB and the big file is going to evict many small files (even if the user only listens to the first 10s). It's no huge difference for a single user/site, but across all users this quickly means needing a multiple of the current cache; which doesn't come for free.

Also, CF have a product to sell. The free tier is just the demo version: I think at the end of the day the policy is about not everyone in HN using CF for their low-cost DIY video and/or music streaming or download platform.

And I can totally see them reverse the decision and sponsor that project (it's probably something a support engineer has no power to decide).

[yellowapple]

> The difference is in the amount of cache you need.

Okay, now run the same thought experiment with 10,000 downloads of a 1MB MP3 v. 10,000 downloads of a 1MB HTML/CSS/JS site. What difference then?

[thayne]

So have a max file size.

Also, the same ToS applies if you use the paid product. Unless you buy an additional addon for non-web traffic.

[manigandham]

The issue is about bandwidth and resources. The policy is generic to provide reasonable allowances but stop usage that's clearly outside the limits. That's how "unlimited but with oversight" plans work.