Sorry for the website performance issues, I've disabled the animation which should help.
Sorry for the website performance issues, I've disabled the animation which should help.
Why would I choose this instead? That isn't clear to me yet.
Pusher solves the problem of scaling in a different way, which is by giving you an HTTP endpoint to send events to. It’s better for large broadcast groups (e.g. sending people sports scores) but doesn’t run any compute for you.
Currently most people are paying the $25 flat rate; for this we bump the per-backend memory limit to 2GB and give them a soft limit of 20 concurrent backends, up to 24h duration for those backends, and enable eager image pushing for faster start times. The pricing will become more sophisticated over time as we deal with a wider variety of usage patterns.
The bring-your-own-compute model is a bit clearer because it's simpler for us to model from the side of our own costs. That has a $25/month base fee plus $10 per “server month” of compute connected to the control plane. For bring-your-own-compute there is no cost or limit to the backends that run, since they run on our customer's own hardware.
So how does the price scale with the limit on concurrent backends? That's the really important factor in determining whether this is feasible (though I assume given a baseline of 20 it probably wouldn't be, for me, right now)
Also, how does BYOC differ from using Plane or Socket.io?
BYOC is essentially a hosted instance of Plane with our hosted container registry, web UI, and command-line tool for deployment.
Jamsocket could be used to spin up a socket.io WebSocket server.