3 ms·

i disagree, somewhat. yes, this won't provide truly comparable services to heroku. clearly. the languages and stack don't work the same way. but i think the

by noodle 16y ago

i disagree, somewhat. yes, this won't provide truly comparable services to heroku. clearly. the languages and stack don't work the same way. but i think the point of this is to communicate the fact that they're abstracting out the server and scalability details. i'd pay to not have to worry about all that stuff and just work on the app. if this thing will handle the server for me, keep it secure and up to date, provide me with a database that will scale with my app like amazon's RDS, provide me with meaningful data and metrics about my server/application/database, and provide me with things to make common tasks easier (deploying), then imo, it is worth me paying for it, or paying a small premium on top of what i'd be paying amazon or whoever. but then again, i'm a solo bootstrapper. the more time i have to develop, the better. "heroku for php" might not be a great choice of a tagline from a strategic perspective, but it is a decent one if you want to consider SEO and organic search results.

cardmagic 16y ago
This wholly encapsulates the philosophy we are bringing to PHP Fog... let us deal with the plumbing and you deal with development.
- cfpg 16y ago
  So, it's basically a PHP shared hosting with source control(git)? I would try it.
  - cardmagic 16y ago
    It will let you seamlessly grow from shared to dedicated hosting (and back again) as needed for either your application serving or database needs.
    - gabriele 16y ago
      this is pretty much what Mediatemple.net already offers with Containers for their GS (shared hosting). They don't have PHP Containers but they do have MySql Containers that are automatically instantiated if traffic spikes. I think you could really make a difference by offering killer features on demand, like isolated memcached instances, redis, cassandra/mongoDB and RabbitMQ. edit: email submited
ErrantX 16y ago
I'm going to wait and see what they come up with. But for decent scalable PHP hosting there are lots of options - sure you need to do a little configuration but, as an example, I just purchased another couple of "shares" on Gandi.net tonight. Adding "share" as extra capacity for a server that needed it took a few seconds. Booting up a new instance on another "share", whipping nginx and my default configuration on took seconds (to set the script off, then it was a 10 minute wait). So what, I guess, they have to do is put together a comparable service that removes the extra 10 minutes configuration work but adds benefit and doesn't cost any more. (don't get me wrong - if they make it, I will use it :D)

by noodle 16y ago

cardmagic 16y ago

This wholly encapsulates the philosophy we are bringing to PHP Fog... let us deal with the plumbing and you deal with development.

cfpg 16y ago
So, it's basically a PHP shared hosting with source control(git)? I would try it.
- cardmagic 16y ago
  It will let you seamlessly grow from shared to dedicated hosting (and back again) as needed for either your application serving or database needs.
  - gabriele 16y ago
    this is pretty much what Mediatemple.net already offers with Containers for their GS (shared hosting). They don't have PHP Containers but they do have MySql Containers that are automatically instantiated if traffic spikes. I think you could really make a difference by offering killer features on demand, like isolated memcached instances, redis, cassandra/mongoDB and RabbitMQ. edit: email submited

ErrantX 16y ago

I'm going to wait and see what they come up with. But for decent scalable PHP hosting there are lots of options - sure you need to do a little configuration but, as an example, I just purchased another couple of "shares" on Gandi.net tonight. Adding "share" as extra capacity for a server that needed it took a few seconds. Booting up a new instance on another "share", whipping nginx and my default configuration on took seconds (to set the script off, then it was a 10 minute wait). So what, I guess, they have to do is put together a comparable service that removes the extra 10 minutes configuration work but adds benefit and doesn't cost any more. (don't get me wrong - if they make it, I will use it :D)