[IMPLEMENTED] CDN: Use shielding?

I have…

I’m submitting a…

  • [ ] Regression (a behavior that stopped working in a new release)
  • [ ] Bug report
  • [ ] Performance issue
  • [x] Documentation issue or request

Current behavior

Traffic reporting on Squidex dashboard is not showing a decrease in traffic although compression has been enabled recently in CDN and we can verify that it works client side (approx. 75-80% less data is transmitted).

Expected behavior

Traffic reporting should reflect CDN traffic with compression reduction. Or, if the traffic data on the dashboard intentionally shows traffic on squidex backend, then it might be, that the compression flag is not forwarded by the CDN or not respected by the squidex backend? Either way, the dashboard should show the traffic data that is used for billing and that one should somehow be affected by enabling compression, from what I understand.

Minimal reproduction of the problem

Request compression (e.g. gzip) client-side when requesting data from the CDN. Then check traffic in squidex reporting dashboard. Monitor over a few days. Traffic doesn’t change compared to without compression.


  • [ ] Self hosted with docker
  • [ ] Self hosted with IIS
  • [ ] Self hosted with other version
  • [x] Cloud version

Version: latest cloud


  • [ ] Chrome (desktop)
  • [ ] Chrome (Android)
  • [ ] Chrome (iOS)
  • [ ] Firefox
  • [ ] Safari (desktop)
  • [ ] Safari (iOS)
  • [ ] IE
  • [ ] Edge

Not sure whether this is a bug report or just a misunderstanding on my end, therefore I’ll file it into support for now. Feel free to move it to bugs.

I think I found the issue: You have an extremely low HIT rate. Only cache hits are tracked in the CDN, because the MISSES are already tracked in the API layer. Therefore you do not see any difference.

Hm, that’s interesting. As our content is pretty static there shouldn’t be a lot of misses. Is there any indicator why there are so few hits?

Summarizing what @Sebastian and me found out so far: my users are hitting different cache servers as they are widely distributed throughout the world and it doesn’t look that fastly CDN does have a global or multi-region cache. Maybe shielding would help here?

Good point. I will check whether shielding makes sense.

1 Like

I don’t see how it would help you. The hit rate would not change. The billed traffic and API calls would be the same, because the tracking is done at the frontend caches and not at the shield.

It would only help me to improve API performance and reduce API hits.

And it would help my users as their requests would potentially be served faster, right? Probably what you mean by API performance.

I’m willing to sacrifice hit rate stats and continue to pay a bit more if the end result are faster requests. :slight_smile:

Yes, that’s a valid point.

Shielding has been activated.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed after 2 days. New replies are no longer allowed.