4 ms·
> 3. Speed is sometimes over-rated. You should be be speedy where it matters more. That is, how fast can you redeploy your entire cloud from scratch in case of
by dantiberian 13y ago
> 3. Speed is sometimes over-rated. You should be be speedy where it matters more. That is, how fast can you redeploy your entire cloud from scratch in case of a disaster should be more interesting to you than if a webpage takes 20 more ms to get to the browser. In our case, at AWS, it is a matter of < 20 minutes.
Personally, I'd rather have 20ms shaved off my users time than a 20 minute disaster recovery time. Disasters happen perhaps once a year (on AWS, possibly less on dedicated servers), people are loading pages every day.
- tzury 13y agoThat's perhaps depend on the type of your customers/users, and their priorities. If you have "users", then you might be right, as no harm will be done, if once in a few years, their free service will be shutdown for 18 hours. However, if your customers are running core and critical parts of their business on your system, this part becomes a significant factor in the equation.
- frozenport 13y agoAnother perspective: My nontechnical boss doesn't know about the 20ms difference (thinks her computer is slow?) but an outage is visible like the difference between day and night.
- aidos 13y agoAt 2s difference it's fair to say that a user is going to notice. Maybe even at 200ms. But at 20ms? I'm not sure that counts. I know it's just a fabricated number but the point is that the server you're running on won't make a difference to the user experience. And, probably in the case of the differences were talking in these machines, a user would never notice it. Edit: meant to say, I agree with you.