问题描述
我注意到在过去一个月的某个时候，我们的标准Akamai CDN变得极其缓慢。 它主要是提供小型静态文件（主要是JS / CSS /较小的图像）
I noticed sometime in the past month that our Standard Akamai CDN has become extremely slow. It mostly is serving small static files (mostly JS / CSS / smaller images)
在 用于在全球范围内获取文件的响应时间（总是先查看第二次运行而不是先生成第一次加载缓存未命中），Origin的
TTFB比我们的标准Akamai全面的TTFB快得多。 情况并非总是如此。
When running tests on https://pulse.turbobytes.com for response times to fetch files across the globe (always looking at 2nd run not first so as to not take into effect first load cache miss), Origin's TTFB are MUCH faster than our Standard Akamai's TTFB across the board. This was not always the case.
我今晚在标准微软CDN上设置了第二张CDN配置文件，仅用于测试，此CDN配置文件非常快（比Origin和标准Akamai更快）
I set up a second CDN profile tonight on Standard Microsoft CDN just to test, and this CDN profile is very fast (faster than both Origin and Standard Akamai)
标准Akamai CDN配置文件是否出现长时间中断/问题，或者有人知道如何对此进行故障排除吗？
Has there been a prolonged outage / issue with Standard Akamai CDN profiles or does anyone know how we can go about troubleshooting this?
取得平均结果相同的文件（世界各地的许多代理商获取相同的文件第二次获取尝试）：
Average results fetching the same file (many agents across world fetching same file 2nd fetch attempt):
类型       |  DNS  |连接| TLS      | TTFB
Origin     | 90毫秒| 163毫秒| 389毫秒| 179 ms
Origin | 90 ms | 163 ms | 389 ms | 179 ms
Akamai   | 62毫秒| 11毫秒   | 131毫秒| 368 ms
Akamai | 62 ms | 11 ms | 131 ms | 368 ms
Microsoft | 47毫秒| 12毫秒   | 122毫秒| 33 ms
Microsoft | 47 ms | 12 ms | 122 ms | 33 ms
需要注意的重要一点是TTFB的差异。
Important thing to note is differences in TTFB.
我不确定这是否是我们可能因更改配置而引起的问题。 在两个实例中都打开了压缩，缓存设置为覆盖/ 365天/缓存Akamai中的每个唯一URL。 测试Akamai没有缓存/压缩和问题
仍然存在。
I'm unsure if this is something we could have caused by changing configuration. Compression is on in both instances, caching is set to override / 365 days / cache every unique URL in Akamai. Tested Akamai with no caching / compression and problems still persisted.
非常感谢。
推荐答案
感谢您与我们联系。我对Akamai CDN进行了类似的测试，我注意到TTFB高于Origin。
Thank you for reaching out. I did a similar test with Akamai CDN and I do noticed that the TTFB is higher than Origin.
但这是非常的第一次运行测试。当我再次运行测试时，我看到了TTFB的显着改善。
But that is for the very first time you run the test. When I ran the test again, I saw significant improvement in TTFB.
你能再次点击Run test并检查吗？
Can you click on Run test again and check ?
此致，
Regards,
Msrini
这篇关于标准Akamai CDN非常慢（比直接原始获取和标准Microsoft慢）的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！