4 ms·

What's the best way to optimize cost here? Complete site cached and served from memory (no disc access -> faster response times -> scales better)?

• jasoncartwright 10y ago
  Quick win would be to put CloudFlare in front of it
  • ryanlol 10y ago
    Why would that do anything? They aren't paying $230/mo for bandwidth, but for shitty VMs.
    • lotyrin 10y ago
      It's mostly cacheable, so they should theoretically be able to scale down the cluster with a caching reverse proxy or CDN.
• ryanlol 10y ago
  Dropping Heroku
• jjoe 10y ago
  This was my thinking and experience when I set out to build Cachoid[0]. There's so much to gain from caching stuff in RAM it should be ubiquitous. The thing is CDNs don't always have the scale to stick all tenants in RAM. Hence the caching to disk. [0] - https://www.cachoid.com/ https://www.cachoid.com/
• lucb1e 10y ago
  From the page: > Do we really need three expensive dynos, or a $50/mo database plan? Sounds like there's the chance to optimize for what is, as they say, a static website. Why for a database that you're not using? (And what kind of a database plan do you have when it costs $50/month when it's apparently a (nearly?) empty database?!)