So the fun fact is this: they were running entirely on free Heroku dynos. This year they successfully transferred to AWS, but they got to a fairly big scale while running entirely on free Heroku dynos. I'm still kind of amazed by that.
So the fun fact is this: they were running entirely on free Heroku dynos. This year they successfully transferred to AWS, but they got to a fairly big scale while running entirely on free Heroku dynos. I'm still kind of amazed by that.
I’ve read so many of these stories now that I understand why Heroku is phasing out the free tier.
It’s kind of fascinating to see how some engineers see free tier limits as an optimization target. I wonder how many engineering hours across the industry went into arbitrarily keeping services small enough to fit in the free tier.
To me, those stories seem like good arguments for reducing the usage limits of the free tier, but not getting rid of it entirely.
Why is that wrong? If everyone optimized their services and applications like it used to be in the past, will substantially bring down compute and memory requirements and reduce overall bloat.
I'm sure that the only reason why they kept the free tier as long as they did was because it brought in enough users (who were eventually converted into paying customers) to be worth the cost.
This is clearly not "working at intended" though and I'd like to believe everyone knows that, including the people building this system.
Eg. Amazon will be forced to say 'For every item purchased from Amazon, 370 grams of CO2 are emitted by our servers and other business operations :-P'
Heroku could have gone back to that i suppose, instead of getting rid of free dynos entirely, but they didn't.
Still... I think you could basically only run one free dyno per account 24/7. I am curious if they somehow fit their entire production in one free dyno, or were somehow splitting things between multiple accounts, or what.
[0] https://www.irs.gov/instructions/i1040gi#en_US_2021_publink1...