But the average website is about 1MB so with a 50MB cache about 50 sites can be cached. Which leaves about 7.2%. That's... OK?
OK. So I don't actually know if a cdn cache hit is all that likely, but the situation is a bit worse, and a bit better than most people think.
Of course, using a cdn is still better than hosting yourself. If you bundle your jQuery then every time your site updates it needs to be redownloaded. If you serve it seperately on your domain, you won't have the distribution benefit of a cdn.
Should you use Google's cdn instead of a different commercial cdn provider that's faster? In that case I'm not sure.
http://w3techs.com/blog/entry/jquery_now_runs_on_every_secon...
Of the top 10k sites 58.8% use jQuery. That's good!
But only 26.6% use a cdn. Leaving only 15.6%. That's bad...
But 94.2% use Google's. Which is still 14.7%! That's good!
http://www.stevesouders.com/blog/2013/03/18/http-archive-jqu...
But only 1% use the newest version of jQuery. Leaving only 0.15%. That's bad...
http://www.quora.com/User-Behavior/How-many-websites-does-an...
But users visit on average 89 sites per month. Which gives us 12.5%. That's good!
http://stevesouders.com/cache.php
But default browser cache sizes are small. That's bad...
http://www.webperformancetoday.com/2013/06/05/web-page-growt...
But the average website is about 1MB so with a 50MB cache about 50 sites can be cached. Which leaves about 7.2%. That's... OK?
OK. So I don't actually know if a cdn cache hit is all that likely, but the situation is a bit worse, and a bit better than most people think.
Of course, using a cdn is still better than hosting yourself. If you bundle your jQuery then every time your site updates it needs to be redownloaded. If you serve it seperately on your domain, you won't have the distribution benefit of a cdn.
Should you use Google's cdn instead of a different commercial cdn provider that's faster? In that case I'm not sure.