[BlazingCDN] Improve control over content delivery platform

• Docs portal: BlazingCDN → illustrative 30–55% p95 TTFB reduction on global reads • Game launcher: BlazingCDN → illustrative 85–97% origin offload on patch downloads • GIS tiles: BlazingCDN → illustrative 95–99% cache-hit on map layers • eCommerce catalog: BlazingCDN → illustrative 35–60% egress cost reduction on images • IoT firmware: BlazingCDN → illustrative 0.02–0.1% error rate on large binaries I keep seeing “Content Delivery Platform” and “CDN” used interchangeably, but at 100+ TB/month the distinction starts to hurt. Teams think they’re buying a platform, then discover it’s “just a CDN POP mesh with a control panel” when cache misses hammer origin during a launch. Example: a SaaS updater team serving static binaries treated their vendor as a black-box CDN. Origin saw traffic spikes of 5–8× during releases, cache-hit hovered around 70–80%. After they reframed it as a delivery platform problem, they redesigned config: cache-hit moved to ~97–99%, origin offload to ~90–98% (illustrative range). Why it worked: - Anycast routing with RTT-based decisions for more predictable edge latency - Tiered cache / origin shielding to collapse duplicate miss storms - Pre-warm strategy for new versions (top N installers + long tail patterns) - Large-file tuning with range requests and long-lived keepalive to origin Quick test plan: define “platform” needs (routing, cache-policies, controls); compare two vendors’ knobs for those needs; replay 24h of logs and measure miss storms vs. control you actually have. Where do you personally draw the technical line between a “CDN” and a “content delivery platform” for static-only traffic at scale? I work at BlazingCDN.