4 ms·

Heroku isn’t “low end,” it’s a PaaS built on top of AWS. So you’re really just hearing about another AWS outage lol

christophilus 5y ago
They're not saying Heroku is low end. They're saying, "I'm tired of hearing that it's irresponsible to run your own servers." At least, that's what I understood.
- ryanbrunner 5y ago
  Any place I've worked at that managed their own servers (to be fair, the last time I worked at a place like that was 2010) definitely had more protracted downtimes than AWS - it just felt not as bad because we were in control of the situation, but at the end of the day that didn't get us up any faster. Another side benefit of being with AWS is when you do have an outage, a lot of other people have outages, and so you sort of blend in with the noise. It's not great to be down, but if you're down and also "big service X" who's also an AWS customer is down, it makes your downtime look less like a lack of competence and more like an unavoidable force of nature.
  - dijit 5y ago
    I guess it's extremely dependent on an org to org basis. I worked at a company that's bread and butter was online services (e-commerce SaaS platform, similar to Netsuite) and we had significantly fewer outages than AWS had. But we had redundancies built in to most things, I'm not saying it was perfect but it worked. The major difference might be that almost nobody is willing to spend 20% of what they spend on AWS/GCP to have a self-hosted solution. The reason "cloud is so expensive" is because they're essentially telling you what the price will be and even if they only spend 40% of that on actual hardware and operations: it's more than most companies would invest in themselves. This is absurd, of course, but it's absolutely true.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
mijoharas 5y ago
This comment doesn't say anything about heroku?

They're not saying Heroku is low end. They're saying, "I'm tired of hearing that it's irresponsible to run your own servers." At least, that's what I understood.

ryanbrunner 5y ago
Any place I've worked at that managed their own servers (to be fair, the last time I worked at a place like that was 2010) definitely had more protracted downtimes than AWS - it just felt not as bad because we were in control of the situation, but at the end of the day that didn't get us up any faster. Another side benefit of being with AWS is when you do have an outage, a lot of other people have outages, and so you sort of blend in with the noise. It's not great to be down, but if you're down and also "big service X" who's also an AWS customer is down, it makes your downtime look less like a lack of competence and more like an unavoidable force of nature.
- dijit 5y ago
  I guess it's extremely dependent on an org to org basis. I worked at a company that's bread and butter was online services (e-commerce SaaS platform, similar to Netsuite) and we had significantly fewer outages than AWS had. But we had redundancies built in to most things, I'm not saying it was perfect but it worked. The major difference might be that almost nobody is willing to spend 20% of what they spend on AWS/GCP to have a self-hosted solution. The reason "cloud is so expensive" is because they're essentially telling you what the price will be and even if they only spend 40% of that on actual hardware and operations: it's more than most companies would invest in themselves. This is absurd, of course, but it's absolutely true.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

mijoharas 5y ago

This comment doesn't say anything about heroku?