3 ms·
There's a distinction to be made between AWS and Heroku. If you're hosting on AWS you still need to have someone who's able to maintain a server. With heroku, y
by Xylakant 14y ago
There's a distinction to be made between AWS and Heroku. If you're hosting on AWS you still need to have someone who's able to maintain a server. With heroku, you don't. So the advantage of AWS over Colo is mainly scalability and the reduced need for expensive hardware. Depending on your apps load behavior, spikes can require that you keep 10 times as much HW than you'd need on the average, that's where AWS really shines. But in the end, the instances you buy at AWS are virtual servers that need a real admin.
- rhizome 14y agoIt's a distinction without much of a difference when most are deploying via Rubber, Vagrant, Chef/Puppet/cfengine, etc. to maintain a policy of programmer-deployers. Of course this isn't a rule, but it's prevalent.
- Xylakant 14y agoNo, not true. Server maintenance is a job that requires that you track what services are deployed on a server, which ones need security updates, knowledge about how to correctly configure a firewall and lots of other stuff. Deployment via Rubber/Puppet/Chef etc. only changes how you get the needed packages and configuration on the server. It doesn't tell you magically what configuration you need on a system. Nitpick: Vagrant is not a deployment system. It's an awesome tool, but it falls back to puppet/chef for the actual configuration.
- rhizome 14y agoI know what server maintenance is.
- Xylakant 14y agoThen I don't get your point. One of the major advantages of heroku over raw AWS is that you don't need to do the server maintenance - it's all done for you. And yet you say that the distinction blurs when people use puppet - which is not true.