2 ms·
Unfortunately, I think the parent commenter is right -- your numbers are (currently) meaningless. Statistically, your sample size for estimating response time i
by mayank 16y ago
Unfortunately, I think the parent commenter is right -- your numbers are (currently) meaningless. Statistically, your sample size for estimating response time is 1 for each of those sites. You need at least a dozen or so monitor sites, preferably distributed in the same way that Internet users are, for anything meaningful information to be gained. Ideally, you'd also want to distribute your monitors taking peering agreements of the ISP, etc. into account for a truly representative picture of response times.
As it stands, you're doing a disservice to startups that aren't on EC2, for no good reason. You solution "works" on a technical level, but the data is statistically meaningless.
- delano 16y agoCombining monitoring data from multiple locations would give a more accurate response time overall. But as a site owner, that number is not very useful because it's not actionable. For example, if response times to my site become slow from say, Dallas or Ireland, there's is nothing I can do about it other than be aware that it's happening. Monitoring from a single location is interesting because it gives a metric for how well my application is performing.
- mayank 16y agoCertainly, but I would say that there are very few Internet startups that cater to a single (or even a few) geographical locations. Your numbers currently indicate quality of service for customers in the same hosting block as Amazon EC2. If you have enough monitors and spread them out well (which shouldn't be too hard, since you could just sign up for Perl/PHP enabled hosting accounts in different locations), you can still diagnose where the slow geographical regions are. In short, having more data can only give you a more accurate picture, depending on how you analyze it.