Does this translate to any tangible savings? I'm not sure what the checkly backend looks like but if tasks are running on a cluster of hosts vs invoked per-task it seems hard to realize savings. Even per-task, 40 ms can only be realized on a service like Lambda—ECS minimum billing unit is 1 second afaik.
edit: Do you have an affiliation with the blog? I ask because you have submitted several articles from checkly in the past.
It seems tiny, but in aggregate this will have an impact on our COGS. You are correct that if we had a fixed fleet of instances, the impact would have been not super interesting.
But still, for a couple of hours spent, this saves us quite some $1Ks per year.
If we think about the business impact, we don't usually think of compute expenditure per-day, so you might reasonably say, the fix saved 90 years of annual compute. Looks better in your promotion packet, too.
Over-optimizing is not going to help you at all but if you ignore it eventually it will all seize up.
You have to keep that stuff in check.
This one is also interesting; written in 2012, it claims that Amazon could lose 1b+ from a 1 sec slowdown: https://www.fastcompany.com/1825005/how-one-second-could-cos.... I imagine people are even less tolerant of slow pages today.
Fixing website performance can be one of the cheapest ways to increase conversion because it's hard to figure out what else moves the needle.
(Long time happy Checkly user here, the service is fantastic)
I, for example, like to dive more on insights like the relative savings vs absolut to learn the approaches other engineers take! It's all about metrics we should take care.
(I'll put this service on my list to try someday, looks like fantastic indeed)