Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Cthulhu_ 4532 days ago
Alternatively, does code.jquery.com offer any kind of uptime guarantee? Big companies would rather rely on their own hosting / CDN than that of jquery, I'm sure.
2 comments

Even for a small company/project, I've stopped using external CDN.

The gain is not significant enough to balance problems like this one. It's not often than a consumer ISP does this mistake, but that's pretty common for a user behind a corporate proxy.

code.jquery.com has in fact gone down in the past, and this did in fact bite my workplace in the backside.

We went to locally-hosted copies of jquery stuff. We kept using Google for JS they hosted, since their uptime way beats ours.

> since their uptime way beats ours

You link to Google's JS so your users can still get it when your own site is down?

If you hosted it yourself your users would see a working site whenever you were up. Now they will see a working site whenever both you and Google are up. This has not improved effective uptime for anyone. (On the other hand, Google might serve the JS faster, especially if your users cache it. They may also keep their copies more up to date.)

GP's point is that it also hasn't noticeably decreased uptime. So especially if there's a speed benefit, why switch?
Ahhh! See, we didn't realise that at that moment. Thank you :-)