Pingdom is kind of nifty for its comparisons. I got the author's site to be only in the top 97% by running the benchmark again. My own site varies from being in the top 90% to 96% (I did get a 99% once), the only real "optimization" I do is reading cached pages from "disk" (EBS is notoriously pretty slow). I could probably shave off an average 100ms with some really simple tricks. Under heavy load I'm certain I'd fall over on such a puny machine that isn't even using nginx+memcached.
If you strive for geek cred, you can get
> Your website is faster than 100% of all tested websites
The trick is to 1. have a static website, obviously, and everything inlined (so basically a single index.html); 2. run the test twice — dns responses should cache during the first one; 3. host your website in Amsterdam which is where they have (at least one of) their testers:
> Tested from Amsterdam, Netherlands on October 16 at 19:04:21
Oh, and don't use SSL.
In a free Heroku instance you have a lot of juice actually, especially for an Nginx server, the only problem being that the instance will go in idle mode after an hour of inactivity and so unlucky visitors can get some latency on the first request, although it's not that awful.
On the other hand CloudFlare is a pretty good proxy that works like a CDN, so with the right caching headers set, CloudFlare will serve many requests from its own cache.
As for resources spent, my own blog has had just over 10k pageviews since Saturday when I launched on S3/CF and for that I'm paying $0.07 (S3) + $0.12 (CF) = a whooping $0.19! Including a lot of writing files back and forth to get everything up and running.
[1] http://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/ [2] http://aws.amazon.com/cloudfront/pricing/
Aside from being unable to figure out a anti-hotlink bucket policy, S3 is great and basically free in most for most blogs.
The blog: http://pygm.us/q6Nv3lja.
Of course it's still literally infinitely larger than my current income :P. (I'm abusing the word "infinitely" horribly, but so be it.)
I think I'm almost definitely going to go the S3 route when I get around to redoing my site and starting a blog. (One day...)
The key downside to hosting directly on S3 is it only does static pages. So it'll be manual HTML or a static-html-generating-tool like Octopress - none of this fancy dynamic content.
If you're happy with this constraint, hosting on S3 works pretty well for me.
Also, almost anything would be an improvement over my current setup which is using PHP on Apache to do what a static compiler would do much better. All I really want is a way to factor my website and reduce code duplication.
Good to hear it's working well for you.