4 ms·

PaaS solutions are worth more than IaaS I think -- someone is applying security patches, autoscaling your app, load balancing, etc. For a more apples to apples

by dlss 11y ago

PaaS solutions are worth more than IaaS I think -- someone is applying security patches, autoscaling your app, load balancing, etc. For a more apples to apples comparison: It's 5x the cost of Elastic Beanstalk... 250 / (0.067 * 24 * 365 / 12) = 5.11 -- though this is misleading because the closest instance was an m3.medium, which has 3 vcpus and 3.75gb of ram. You can also get a major discount if you go reserved. It's 0.68x the cost of App Engine F4 instances (the biggest available).. 250 / (0.20 * 2.5 * 24 * 365 / 12), though those only have 1G of ram, so that's assuming you somehow buy 2.5 of them :p It's 2.2x the cost of AWS Lambda... 250 / ((0.000001667 + 0.000002501) * 10 * 60 * 60 * 24 * 365 / 12) = 2.28, though this is misleading because it'm adding up a 1.5gb instance and a 1gb instance. Also it's likely much cheaper as Lambda only charges you for used time, and almost all traffic loads are TOD / DOW dependent.

passiveincome 11y ago
It seems like they still struggle with Security exploits--It's not a perfect system. For example: https://blog.heroku.com/archives/2013/1/9/password_hijacking_security_incident_and_response https://blog.heroku.com/archives/2013/1/9/password_hijacking... Also, you could get pretty solid protection and faster response time with something like unattended-upgrades https://help.ubuntu.com/community/AutomaticSecurityUpdates https://help.ubuntu.com/community/AutomaticSecurityUpdates I think the value proposition mostly lies in the autoscaling, but seems like a waste in aggregate since most apps never hit any sort of scale.
- dlss 11y ago
  In fairness to Heroku you're citing a security issue with the heroku.com webapp, not an issue with the platform they're selling. Also: as long as traffic spikes remain a thing, autoscaling isn't wasteful... The alternatives are your site going down or buying bigger servers than you need in the first place... (That's not to say I approve of heroku though, the foundation it supplies is horrible, and missing basic things like [gzip'd asset transfers](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12326191/any-way-to-serve-gzip-assets-from-heroku https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12326191/any-way-to-serv...)...)

by dlss 11y ago

passiveincome 11y ago

It seems like they still struggle with Security exploits--It's not a perfect system. For example: https://blog.heroku.com/archives/2013/1/9/password_hijacking_security_incident_and_response https://blog.heroku.com/archives/2013/1/9/password_hijacking... Also, you could get pretty solid protection and faster response time with something like unattended-upgrades https://help.ubuntu.com/community/AutomaticSecurityUpdates https://help.ubuntu.com/community/AutomaticSecurityUpdates I think the value proposition mostly lies in the autoscaling, but seems like a waste in aggregate since most apps never hit any sort of scale.

dlss 11y ago
In fairness to Heroku you're citing a security issue with the heroku.com webapp, not an issue with the platform they're selling. Also: as long as traffic spikes remain a thing, autoscaling isn't wasteful... The alternatives are your site going down or buying bigger servers than you need in the first place... (That's not to say I approve of heroku though, the foundation it supplies is horrible, and missing basic things like [gzip'd asset transfers](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12326191/any-way-to-serve-gzip-assets-from-heroku https://stackoverflow.com/questions/12326191/any-way-to-serv...)...)