Amazon found every 100ms of latency cost them 1% in sales.
The GigaSpaces CTO, Nati Shalom, dropped me a line recently pointing out a recent article on High Scalability, which is very interesting. There is an excerpt from the article below:
Latency matters. Amazon found every 100ms of latency cost them 1% in sales. Google found an extra .5 seconds in search page generation time dropped traffic by 20%. A broker could lose $4 million in revenues per millisecond if their electronic trading platform is 5 milliseconds behind the competition.
The Amazon results were reported by Greg Linden in his presentation Make Data Useful. In one of Greg’s slides Google VP Marissa Mayer, in reference to the Google results, is quoted as saying “Users really respond to speed.” And everyone wants responsive users. Ka-ching! People hate waiting and they’re repulsed by seemingly small delays.
The less interactive a site becomes the more likely users are to click away and do something else. Latency is the mother of interactivity. Though it’s possible through various UI techniques to make pages subjectively feel faster, slow sites generally lead to higher customer defection rates, which lead to lower conversation rates, which results in lower sales. Yet for some reason latency isn’t a topic talked a lot about for web apps. We talk a lot about about building high-capacity sites, but very little about how to build low-latency sites. We apparently do so at the expense of our immortal bottom line.
I wondered if latency went to zero if sales would be infinite? But alas, as Dan Pritchett says, Latency Exists, Cope!. So we can’t hide the “latency problem” by appointing a Latency Czar to conduct a nice little war on latency. Instead, we need to learn how to minimize and manage latency. It turns out a lot of problems are better solved that way.
How do we recover that which is most meaningful–sales–and build low-latency systems?
Well, the answer to that questions is “you choose product that are built to handle your latency requirements whilst still allowing you to support scale”. Again it’s clear that Tier Based Architectures with their mish-mash of separate cluster implementations are not only state bound at each tier but are also complex to manage and maintain. GigaSpaces has been talking about these things for a long time now and it’s good to see that there are more general debates and hard evidence of the affects of not building your systems this way.