3 ms·
For us it was mainly the fact that every month some part of Heroku is down or degraded. That and the huge price increase when jumping from the standard dynos to
by cjhowarddev 5y ago
For us it was mainly the fact that every month some part of Heroku is down or degraded. That and the huge price increase when jumping from the standard dynos to the large dynos.
For reference, we migrated to new t4g instances on AWS and received about a 100x performance improvement for a similar (sometimes cheaper) price than Heroku. We are also able to connect to our company VPC and use private resources partitioned elsewhere in AWS (e.g. a redis cluster that costs the same as Heroku with far fewer limitations).
The downside is obviously configuration and learning AWS. Thankfully, we are pretty well versed in AWS here.
- karmelapple 5y agoThanks for the details. Looking at prices is definitely something I’m going to be doing in the short-to-medium term here. We’ve grown our Heroku bill for years, but I’m not entirely sure what all they take care of that RDS or Aurora wouldn’t also handle. We currently don’t have anyone who is a dedicated sysadmin, so that’s one thing to keep in mind. We’ve been able to rely on shared sysadmin responsibilities here and there, and have Heroku take care of monitoring if our database has somehow “degraded.” But I do wonder if when Heroku identifies that a database needs to be updated, if they’re really just rebranding something AWS does automatically with RDS. I’m just not sure.