Hacker News Reader

Comment by pbiggar | Hacker News Reader

Normally, I'd disagree, but part of starting a URL shortening company would seem to be a commitment to keep it working in the future, partially because its so easy and partially because URLs shouldn't die.

Charitably, we'll say they have a billion URLs. Each mapping is maybe 8bytes->256bytes. So they have a max of 264GB of data. That would fit on a heroku postgres dev plan, and the code to run it would take a single engineer half a day to put it on heroku.

View on HN

They could also just join 301Works[0], who seem to some degree affiliated with the Internet Archive and will keep on running the redirect if they are given technical control of the domain.

[0] http://archive.org/details/301works

While I agree this is not a huge engineering endeavor and Yahoo could do the Internet a solid by making this work, our free dev databases are limited to 10k rows (and, as the name suggests, intended for development). Please don't put a billion in them.

Fair. I was just trying to find a thing they could stick this on for basically nothing. The $49 plan would have been fine too.

FYI, I didn't notice this limitation on the pricing page.

Oof, you're right--sorry about that. The addons page [1] has the right pricing, but our own pricing page is incorrect. I'll make sure we get this updated. Thanks for pointing it out!

[1]: https://addons.heroku.com/heroku-postgresql

No, a URL shortening company was a commitment to breaking the internet by adding redirection. The URLs should die to discourage the others.

still not zero cost

Sure, but with 6 engineers it would be the polite thing to do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com