4 ms·

IMO the fear is being overstated, everything's written down in either in single deploy script or configured CI, i.e. there's not going to be some loss of know h

by mythz 8y ago

IMO the fear is being overstated, everything's written down in either in single deploy script or configured CI, i.e. there's not going to be some loss of know how. It's the same as if the person in charge of Heroku leaves, someone else needs the login credentials and know how to setup Heroku as they would with any CI. I don't know what Heroku is offering, but Lightsail and ECS instances also have metrics and pretty graphs (tho admittingly I rarely check them myself), maybe it will save me some ssh sessions to manually update security patches, I was recently able to upgrade my Lightsail instance to the latest Ubuntu 18.04 LTS with just: $ do-release-upgrade > But any <100 people company.. why bother? Because it's 5x more expensive. > focus on what you're good at, and let other people do devops. But it already takes hardly any time/effort to keep doing what I'm already doing. I guess it's for different Companies who see the value-added benefits that justify the cost, but it's being propositioned here that everyone should be using Heroku first, just boggles my mind why most people would do that as the first option when it's so much more expensive. I already think the cloud is too expensive, so there's little chance I'm going to be paying a re-occurring premium for something that's not going to save me any time over what I'm already doing.

aiiane 8y ago
Upgrading with do-release-update is simple if it works... but what happens when it breaks?
- zrm 8y ago
  > Upgrading with do-release-update is simple if it works... but what happens when it breaks? That is what snapshots are for.
  - marcinzm 8y ago
    So now the non-engineer needs to understand snapshots, ensuring snapshots don't break, ssh, roll back, etc. That's assuming the bad upgrade didn't leave any damage behind (like DB data, etc.). And assuming they didn't lose the post-it they wrote the CLI credentials on since you easily can't reset those unlike Heroku.
    - zrm 8y ago
      Snapshots are typically part of the provider's web management interface and are basically the first thing anybody who makes changes to anything should learn how to use. Moreover, if you're having someone else manage your systems and they upgrade them, now what do you do when the new version causes problems? I ran into an issue recently where newer systems default to a newer version of a protocol but the implementation of the newer protocol has a major bug the old one didn't. When that happens on your systems you roll back until you can solve the issue. When it happens on systems managed by someone else, better hope you can identify and solve the issue quickly because in the meantime your system is broken.
jrochkind1 8y ago
If it replaces one engineer, that's like $150K+/year (when including taxes and overhead, that is not at all a high estimate). So it depends on what the 'x' is in '5x more expensive'. And will probably be more reliable than what you'd get paying one (more) engineer to do it in-house too.
- eropple 8y ago
  If you're hiring a "devops engineer" whose total responsibility is cloud touching, sure. You're right. But where is that actually the case and your app can run comfortably on Heroku? At multiple jobs I've been the only person who could credibly claim to understand the entire stack used at the company, from the web frontend to the OS the backend database runs on and the person to whom teams would come to validate their designs for scaling and reliability. I didn't write product code in those roles. But I multiplied the effectiveness of the people who did. Heroku is a wonderful tool that doesn't get you the actually hard parts of the job req.
lumost 8y ago
at 5x the cost of 10k/year in infrastructure spend, Heroku is significantly less than a dedicated DevOps team. however, If you're product is backups as a service and you'll need 100PB of storage, then Heroku is probably not the best option.
- lazyjones 8y ago
  > at 5x the cost of 10k/year in infrastructure spend, Heroku is significantly less than a dedicated DevOps team. How do these costs scale with 10x or 100x the traffic/load?
  - lumost 8y ago
    At 100x the traffic the business would be at 5 million dollars a year in spend, and would exceed the standard pricing model of Heroku. The business can then 1) Negotiate with Heroku for an enterprise contract 2) Consider migrating to a more cost effective platform 3) Dedicate time home-growing a solution. Part of the reason Heroku charges so much is because their customers are typically small, but they'd likely rather find a price that keeps you on their platform vs. home-growing a solution.

by mythz 8y ago

aiiane 8y ago

Upgrading with do-release-update is simple if it works... but what happens when it breaks?

zrm 8y ago
> Upgrading with do-release-update is simple if it works... but what happens when it breaks? That is what snapshots are for.
- marcinzm 8y ago
  So now the non-engineer needs to understand snapshots, ensuring snapshots don't break, ssh, roll back, etc. That's assuming the bad upgrade didn't leave any damage behind (like DB data, etc.). And assuming they didn't lose the post-it they wrote the CLI credentials on since you easily can't reset those unlike Heroku.
  - zrm 8y ago
    Snapshots are typically part of the provider's web management interface and are basically the first thing anybody who makes changes to anything should learn how to use. Moreover, if you're having someone else manage your systems and they upgrade them, now what do you do when the new version causes problems? I ran into an issue recently where newer systems default to a newer version of a protocol but the implementation of the newer protocol has a major bug the old one didn't. When that happens on your systems you roll back until you can solve the issue. When it happens on systems managed by someone else, better hope you can identify and solve the issue quickly because in the meantime your system is broken.

jrochkind1 8y ago

If it replaces one engineer, that's like $150K+/year (when including taxes and overhead, that is not at all a high estimate). So it depends on what the 'x' is in '5x more expensive'. And will probably be more reliable than what you'd get paying one (more) engineer to do it in-house too.

eropple 8y ago
If you're hiring a "devops engineer" whose total responsibility is cloud touching, sure. You're right. But where is that actually the case and your app can run comfortably on Heroku? At multiple jobs I've been the only person who could credibly claim to understand the entire stack used at the company, from the web frontend to the OS the backend database runs on and the person to whom teams would come to validate their designs for scaling and reliability. I didn't write product code in those roles. But I multiplied the effectiveness of the people who did. Heroku is a wonderful tool that doesn't get you the actually hard parts of the job req.

lumost 8y ago

at 5x the cost of 10k/year in infrastructure spend, Heroku is significantly less than a dedicated DevOps team. however, If you're product is backups as a service and you'll need 100PB of storage, then Heroku is probably not the best option.

lazyjones 8y ago
> at 5x the cost of 10k/year in infrastructure spend, Heroku is significantly less than a dedicated DevOps team. How do these costs scale with 10x or 100x the traffic/load?
- lumost 8y ago
  At 100x the traffic the business would be at 5 million dollars a year in spend, and would exceed the standard pricing model of Heroku. The business can then 1) Negotiate with Heroku for an enterprise contract 2) Consider migrating to a more cost effective platform 3) Dedicate time home-growing a solution. Part of the reason Heroku charges so much is because their customers are typically small, but they'd likely rather find a price that keeps you on their platform vs. home-growing a solution.