> Back-end web servers don't have human nervous systems. Faster response time means that a give bit of hardware can support
> a much higher load, saving you money
Fair point, I can't argue against it as stated. Although I have no way of know if this person's site is ever overloaded or has any chance of saving money. Other sites do for sure. Not knocking using in-memory caches, they can be a life-saver.
Like everyone else here, I've been to a lot of meetings down the year that came down to arguing about optimizations that could not pay for themselves before the heat death of the universe. As such, I've developed an allergy to context-free performance comparisons.
On 9/29/19 7:01 PM, Morris de Oryx wrote:
Sigh. I despair of "16x faster" and "20x faster" headlines that ignore the raw numbers.
The worst numbers in there are far below the threshold of user perception. Unless these results are compounded by running in a loop, they are meaningless. Not immeasurable, just meaningless.
That piece is from 1993, but the human nervous system hasn't changed since then.
Back-end web servers don't have human nervous systems. Faster response time means that a give bit of hardware can support a much higher load, saving you money
--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
