5 ms·
Personally, I don't put stuff on Heroku because it's costly and inefficient. Let's say I have a bunch of pet projects and applications I want to run (blog, IRC
by Veratyr 11y ago
Personally, I don't put stuff on Heroku because it's costly and inefficient.
Let's say I have a bunch of pet projects and applications I want to run (blog, IRC bouncer, some kind of photo management). They take negligible CPU most of the time and ~128MB RAM each.
If I throw these on Heroku, I have to pay $7/each for 3 separate dynos, for a total of $21. Alternatively I can pay nothing but deal with my stuff being down 25% of the time.
If I throw them on Vultr or DigitalOcean, I pay $5 for a 512MB (768MB on Vultr) box and they all run happily ever after.
Heroku forces me to buy 4x the resources I actually need, which is a huge waste. It'd be nice to share my pool of resources so that if I use 384MB of RAM, I pay for 384MB of RAM or at least only pay for 512MB.
I know it's very unlikely you care about users like me and that's totally fine, I know things like this aren't particularly lucrative. Just thought I'd mention it since you asked about feedback.
- jacques_chester 11y agoHeroku isn't selling blank VMs, though. It's a value-added service -- you don't have to configure servers, build docker images, manage logging, wire up routes, inject service dependencies ... it goes on and on. PaaSes are expensive if your time is free. I work for a company which donates enormous engineering resources to an opensource Heroku competitor (Cloud Foundry). As a note, Cloud Foundry lets you specify exactly how much RAM you want to use. You can try it on Pivotal Web Services[0] (hosted by my employers) or BlueMix. [0] https://run.pivotal.io/ https://run.pivotal.io/