Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Google Announces Google CDN

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the well-isn't-that-interesting dept.

Google 205

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.'"

cancel ×

205 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

all your base... (0)

jank1887 (815982) | more than 3 years ago | (#36906800)

at least when they finish taking over the world we'll be able to find things on the internet REALLY FAST.

Re:all your base... (3, Funny)

queen of everything (695105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36906824)

how long until we just rename it to the "googlenet"?

Re:all your base... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36906832)

soon... very soon.

Re:all your base... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36906942)

I for one welcome our future mind-state virtualization host overlords.

Re:all your base... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907030)

virtualization and cloud computing have very little to do with each other. google does not use virtualization for their cloud computing.

Re:all your base... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907490)

AppEngine's Java platform offers a virtualized virtual machine. It may not be virtualization in the sense that you install an OS and treat it like a server, but it's still virtualization.

Re:all your base... (0)

BrokenHalo (565198) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907186)

What I don't see is any benefit to the user in living in Google's little padded cell, being fed premasticated pap. All of the benefits seem to flow Google's way, in terms of both ad revenue and the ability to construct an ever more comprehensive database of users' interests, inevitably tied to a unique ID.

What could possibly go wrong?

Re:all your base... (1)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907360)

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.

for end users, a tangible benefit is obvious to me (1)

way2trivial (601132) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907612)

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.

Re:all your base... (2)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907548)

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.

Re:all your base... (1)

DevConcepts (1194347) | more than 3 years ago | (#36906860)

Better than Skynet or is it the same thing?

Re:all your base... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36906878)

The important thing is we found a way to mention Skynet in every fucking discussion. Good job!

At least GNAA was funny.

Re:all your base... (0)

Xacid (560407) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907042)

Don't blame him - Hitler made him do it.

Re:all your base... (4, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907078)

Would that make a Wifi access point a G-spot? I can see the support calls "try pinging your G-spot"

Re:all your base... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907178)

Don't forget the finger protocol.

Re:all your base... (1)

acoustix (123925) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907242)

I would do a WHOIS first. You can't be too careful these days.

Re:all your base... (0)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907288)

I would do a WHOIS first. You can't be too careful these days.

And watch out fro trojans ...

Re:all your base... (1)

milkmage (795746) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907790)

T-1000 (beta)

Re:all your base... (1)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907866)

how long until we just rename it to the "googlenet"?

That's not what you call it now?

Re:all your base... (1)

rbrausse (1319883) | more than 3 years ago | (#36906864)

yesterday we read about Akamai [slashdot.org] , 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?

Re:all your base... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36906888)

If you read the article, it says they're going to charge for this.

Re:all your base... (2)

afidel (530433) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907546)

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.

Re:all your base... (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36906894)

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?

Re:all your base... (1)

gmueckl (950314) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907128)

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").

Static pages on an online shopping site (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907934)

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.

Re:all your base... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907410)

A common technique is to serve static content from one server, and have that server proxy requests for dynamic content to another server. Or vice-versa. Obviously this makes more sense for a really high-volume site, with lots of static content (images and the like) but also plenty of dynamic content too. Page Speed could work well in that circumstance.

Seems like pretty specific use case, though.

Re:all your base... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907972)

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.

Re:all your base... (1)

robmv (855035) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907130)

It is not free of cost, it is free for testing and prices will be announced later

CloudFlare for me (1)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907188)

This is why I am using CloudFlare.

Somehow I trust them more than Google.

Google web (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36906812)

Up next: Google earth

Re:Google web (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36906844)

Too late.

What's next? Google Sex Beta? (0)

chuckhriczko (1781584) | more than 3 years ago | (#36906848)

I love Google and all the services they provide. Without them the web would not be what it is today and a CDN will help developers like me BIG TIME! But what are they going to provide next? Android powered sexbots? Wait a minute.... I actually kind of want one of those now...

Re:What's next? Google Sex Beta? (1)

cvtan (752695) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907228)

After millions of years, Sex2.0 is still in beta? This is worse than Duke Nukem.

Re:What's next? Google Sex Beta? (1)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907270)

Nice astroturf attempt, Sergei.

Re:What's next? Google Sex Beta? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907522)

Where do you get off assuming it was Sergei without anything to back it up?

It probably was Larry.

Google Canadian? (-1, Troll)

phyr (586855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36906852)

Dumping the US$ fast! All transactions on android market will now only be in CDN dollars

But what about non-static pages? (5, Insightful)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 3 years ago | (#36906868)

So, it rewrites my HTML, but what about my PHP (Perl, Python, your_scripting_language_here)?

Re:But what about non-static pages? (1, Interesting)

trum4n (982031) | more than 3 years ago | (#36906906)

It more than likely just optimizes known bad code. I would guess it "fixes" pages made with shitty software like Microsoft Frontpage.

Re:But what about non-static pages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907216)

Just a guess, but I think it does everything pagespeed firebug plugin does/complains about:

Optimizes the images
Minifies the HTML
Minifies the JS
Minifies the CSS
Combines all JS into a single file.
Combines all CSS into a single file.
Removes unused CSS rules.
Rewrites inefficient selectors ".outgoing a" or "ol li a.someclass".
Moves any stray CSS to the head of the page, to prevent "page flashing."
Moves any JS that can be moved to the bottom of the page to the bottom of the page, as when JS is encountered all rendering stops, so moving it to the bottom allows the HTML to render faster.
Sets far futures expiration headers on static content (CSS, JS, images, fav icon)
Eliminates E-Tags (or properly sets them) in the header.
Provides CDN service (Content Delivery Network).

Re:But what about non-static pages? (1)

definate (876684) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907310)

Does it sanitize input?

How does it handle dynamic code? Eg, when does it know to send you a cached copy, and when to send you a fresh one.

This sounds similar to a start-up I heard about a while ago, can't remember the name though. Either way, if they implement this well, this could be an awesome service.

Re:But what about non-static pages? (1)

Architect_sasyr (938685) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907554)

Wasn't that the company pretty recently who said they did this... that they "accidentally" made a web accelerator when they were doing some security work? Has google bought them out or are they ripping them off. Maybe I read it on the sophos naked security feeds, but I can't find it.

Re:But what about non-static pages? (1)

definate (876684) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907622)

Yeah, that sounds like it!

Can't remember the name though.

That's CloudFlare (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907992)

You're thinking of this story [slashdot.org] about CloudFlare.

Re:But what about non-static pages? (1)

curunir (98273) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907774)

Some of the things on your list can't be done automatically without possibly causing problems.

You can't rewrite inefficient selectors or remove CSS rules because classes can be applied and DOM elements inserted dynamically in JavaScript. Unless you're going to do fairly complex analysis of the JavaScript on the page to determine that it's not changing classes on DOM elements or adding/removing to/from the DOM.

You also can't easily move JavaScript to the bottom of the page without possibly breaking things. There's a reason rendering stops when it hits JavaScript code...it's because document.write can introduce HTML code that needs to be added at the point the script executes. You can check whether a script uses document.write directly, but JavaScript is dynamic enough to give you quite a few ways of invoking that function (eval, document["write"], etc.) You could run it through a browser to determine if document.write ever gets called, but even if that passed, there's no way to ensure that the JavaScript isn't browser specific.

You can recommend those steps to developers because they can ensure that those rare occurrences aren't happening, but you can't apply them automatically without at least telling developers so they can add some HTTP header or other means for opting out of that functionality.

Re:But what about non-static pages? (1)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36906936)

Largely my first thought. Not much of the web is static these days. Most people who just want "a basic page with some info on it" unfortunately just use facebook now. Even really simple pages tend to have _some_ dynamic widget on them that relies on server side activity.

May be useful if one seperated out static and dynamic content into seperate domains.. but for anything short of large scale this is a hassle.

Re:But what about non-static pages? (-1, Troll)

Atzanteol (99067) | more than 3 years ago | (#36906968)

Really?

Re:But what about non-static pages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907022)

BUT "your_scripting_language_there" only outputs HTML.
Still, its not as if though I'd handle all my internet to google...

Re:But what about non-static pages? (1)

slim (1652) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907084)

Like any other proxy, no doubt it will heed the cache-control HTTP headers.

Re:But what about non-static pages? (0)

Whalou (721698) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907086)

It will be transformed into Go [golang.org] .

Re:But what about non-static pages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907096)

Unless I've missed some new web 3.0 trend, PHP etc. create HTML which is then send to the users.

Holy shit (1)

Mr 44 (180750) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907278)

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.

Re:But what about non-static pages? (1)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907448)

Judging for most of Google's pages, they're more likely to ask "static pages? What're those and who still uses them?"

I recently discovered that Google actually has a subdomain for their static content (static.google.com, I believe), since they use so little of it. Somehow, I think Google is probably expecting most pages to be non-static.

Re:But what about non-static pages? (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907878)

Google uses a subdomain because they share so much static content across their subdomains (mail... plus... docs... etc etc), so sharing the static content speeds up those subdomains due to client side caching.

Re:But what about non-static pages? (1)

jmrives (1019046) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907694)

Google provides a test page where you can enter a URL and it will process the page and report on expected improvements. The test takes awhile -- depending on the queue. I have submitted a heavy Javascript-ed page to satisfy my own curiosity. Perhaps, you should do the same for PHP et al.

Re:But what about non-static pages? (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907696)

What about non-static pages? Do you expect Google to magically host your entire site, in its proper environment?

No - you send out the correct headers in response to queries about changes to the page - and if the content in your "non-static" page hasn't actually changed, you tell Google that (or hell, any client that is asking) and it serves up its cached copy. Even most dynamic pages wont change every second, so why run the page code for each request?

And insert ads (2)

coinreturn (617535) | more than 3 years ago | (#36906870)

I presume they'll be inserting ads into your website!

Re:And insert ads (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36906910)

I presume they'll be inserting ads into your website!

Well it's a limited trial which will turn into a paid service, I suspect they won't alter the appearance and functionality for paying customers. However if they had an ad supported version for free that might also be helpful.

Re:And insert ads (1)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36906934)

Half the pages already have google ads inserted into them. They are just eliminating the additional server request...

Re:And insert ads (5, Insightful)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36906962)

Maybe. If you don't plan on paying or shit, why not? OTOH you pay a small fee to opt out of ads, that would be ok too.

When someone offers a "free" service, it's not really free. Almost always there is a hidden catch of some sort. This idea. This mentality that everything in the world should be free with no strings attached is ludicrous. Either you read and accept the TOS [google.com] , or you don't.

Re:And insert ads (1)

Amouth (879122) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907616)

I would say the hidden catch here is that they now know more about your site traffic than they did be fore.

Re:And insert ads (2)

Anrego (830717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36906970)

Oh man.. nostalgia flashback to the geocities days :D

I remember entire sites dedicated to little bits of script you'd put in your pages to trick various the free website providers "ad insertion code" into pluggin their ad code into an invisible frame or commented out section or used javascript to remove the ad after the fact!

Re:And insert ads (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36906994)

(Posting AC because I'm at work and I don't log in from work...)

Why would you presume that? Google doesn't exactly have a reputation for those sorts of shenanigans. In fact, of all the for-profit companies, they actually manage to walk that very fine line of offering services for free while taking what they need to turn a profit while rarely ever screwing people over. I suspect they'll offer this service for free, offer it in a way that makes people _want_ to use it, and gather the information they want so they can better provide eyes to their advertisers, much the way they've been doing for years. Which leads to my second point - why insert ads into a website that probably already carries Google's ads? It's the biggest ad network so most websites already use it - they don't need to inject ads since they're already there.

Re:And insert ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907826)

The fine article says this is a trial run after which they expect to charge a fee.

Re:And insert ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907290)

I presume they'll be inserting ads into your website!

Just because you would do that, if you controlled the flow of traffic, doesn't mean Google would do so as well.

Re:And insert ads (1)

repetty (260322) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907948)

I presume they'll be inserting ads into your website!

How are you entitled to do that?

Phishing/Ads nightmare? (1)

shellster_dude (1261444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36906946)

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..."

PSS: Brought to you by the Google Health Vault (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36906978)

I do not see what all the Buzz is about Page Speed Service. How soon before this product is dropped too because it was too expensive or not enough interest?

Re:PSS: Brought to you by the Google Health Vault (1)

MadChicken (36468) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907388)

It's just the next Wave of features from their Labs.

In Soviet Russia... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36906992)

... cloud uses you!

No surpises here really (5, Interesting)

tomcatuk (999578) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907118)

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...

Re:No surpises here really (4, Insightful)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907248)

Speed should be a ranking factor. They still need to demonstrate better latency than competing CDNs if they want my business.

Re:No surpises here really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907570)

So someone with the actual content will be punished while spammers speed up their service to get better rankings. Yep

Worthless (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907122)

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...

Re:Worthless (1)

ledow (319597) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907206)

How do you expect a 3rd party without your TLS private key to proxy AND compress (i.e. modifying the content) your HTTPS connections?

CDN for images only? (2)

joshuao3 (776721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907162)

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.

Re:CDN for images only? (1)

outsider007 (115534) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907224)

The only reason I can imaging having a problem with lossless image compression is if you hate your visitors.

Re:CDN for images only? (1)

joshuao3 (776721) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907484)

I wouldn't have a problem with lossless compression as long as any alpha-transparency is maintained. So, perhaps I missed something: Where does it say that the compression will be lossless?

Opera...again (2)

guppysap13 (1225926) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907202)

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.

Re:Opera...again (2)

mounthood (993037) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907530)

There's a current web site/service offering this but focused on protection: blocking SQL injection, botnet spam, etc... I can't for the life of me remember what it's called. They act as a CDN and reverse proxy too, but speeding up the sites was more of a side effect of reducing the number of queries by something like 30%.

Re:Opera...again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907814)

CloudFlare?

Re:Opera...again (1)

mounthood (993037) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907956)

CloudFlare! Thank you. https://www.cloudflare.com/overview.html [cloudflare.com]

On average, a website on CloudFlare ...
... loads twice as fast
... uses 60% less bandwidth
... has 65% fewer requests
... is way more secure

Re:Opera...again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907918)

It's called cloudflare.

Re:Opera...again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907938)

CloudFlare.

I'm using them for a couple of small sites and they seem to work as advertised. I even used them to block certain spam countries from hitting the site

Re:Opera...again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907940)

Cloudflare.

Re:Opera...again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907562)

Opera does it from the client side, and Google offers it from the server side. Technique might be the same, but approach is different.

Re:Opera...again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907806)

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.

No. Not even close.
 
This (and every other CDN) is for web site hosters. Opera is for website users. If I am hosting a website from my basement, the speed is likely to be mediocre due to my upstream speed. If I reverse proxy through a CDN, then my website is cached within the CDN's servers (much faster than mine, much better internet connection. Content served from an optimized location respective of the website user). A better comparison would be to Akamai or EdgeCast or CacheFly or LimeLight or Rackspace CloudFiles or ....

Re:Opera...again (1)

guppysap13 (1225926) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907882)

That's what I get for posting to slashdot before I take a shower. Thanks!

Re:Opera...again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907954)

Opera has had a similar feature built in

TFS has nothing to do with compression the files before being sent. And I'd have to dig into Opera Turbo a bit more but I'm skeptical that Opera redirects all traffic through their server first so it can be compressed. That makes no sense. The extra time involved with that extra layer would wipe out any benefit of having it compressed in the first place.

Compression happens at the web server, if enabled, if the browser requests it. Which is how I believe stuff such as Opera Turbo works and I'm pretty sure all modern browsers do this.

cloudflare (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907220)

serious competition

DDOS protection? (1)

assemblerex (1275164) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907260)

Would this have google take all DDOS hits and not my server? Sounds good.

Anyone signed up and read the TOS (1)

cjjjer (530715) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907294)

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.

A test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907370)

A test:

http://www.webpagetest.org/result/110728_PJ_84d87ed307e3256893ec9200809b5643/

Not just content with controlling search traffic.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907588)

They want to know where you're going when you're not using Google, too. I'll pass. OpenDNS has been decent so far.

Then google shuts ya down if they wish (1)

Cito (1725214) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907638)

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.

eat own dogfood (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907662)

I will do this when google runs its own websites through it's own pagespeed service.
According to my HTML validator www.google.com has 64 errors /4 warnings (and that is without performing a search)

A message to Google: Fix your own shit before trying to fix others.

Free is always the right price (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907798)

I'm wondering how Akamai is feeling this morning.

And if you don't sign up... (1)

Beorytis (1014777) | more than 3 years ago | (#36907844)

...don't expect your page to show up in search results above other sites that have signed up.

Re:And if you don't sign up... (1)

vgerclover (1186893) | more than 3 years ago | (#36908014)

Have you seen any evidence that Google skews its ranking system in favor of clients that use other Google services? The most I've seen is ads being placed on top, clearly marked as ads. It is in Google's best interest to keep search excellent, regardless of any money that someone could throw at them. After all, they seem to be doing great without the need to sell out on search [google.com] , don't they?

Don't Be Evil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907900)

Alright Google, sooner or later you will have most of the internet in the palm of your hands (if you don't already). So, try and keep your promise about not being evil. Not that it'd matter much once the CEOs die out and we get new CEOs who end up being evil. Thus, every day Google should make all employees repeat a mantra. It'd go, "Don't be evil, don't be evil, don't be evil, don't be evi..." etc etc. ...We are so screwed.

Preliminary Tests (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36907928)

Well, the preliminary tests don't exactly seem promising. At least not for my site. Though I find it very odd that it says the site took 7 seconds to load naturally when all of our records indicate that people are getting much faster load times.

http://www.webpagetest.org/result/110728_8X_59f9be28951b0d52b317193839360e72/

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?