Hacker News Reader

Comment by diziet | Hacker News Reader

If our company was hosted on Heroku instead of AWS, we would have to shut down. Want a 50gb redis? $4k/mo. MongoHQ's largest heroku instance is 150gb at $2700 / month? We'll need at least 50. Want 300 workers? That's $20k / mo for less quality servers.

Heroku is great for working on your own project or if your data scale is small. Otherwise, the cost is just too high.

View on HN

At that point, don't you have enough scale, money, and need to actually hire an ops person?

The size of your data and the number of processes you run have nothing to do with your available cash for hiring people.

The amount of money you have to grow your business is directly proportional to the cost overheads of running your app minus the revenue it generates. We are assuming that the larger your internet service is the more money you will make.

Of course that has yet to be empirically proved.

A service that processes tweets from the firehose in realtime. Assuming you decide to process everything day 1, thats a case where the overhead from running your app could greatly outweigh the revenue it generates.

I mean, I guess? I would question that business and processing model heavily, though. Most sustainable business models show growing from some kind of smaller MVP to a larger full-featured application.

Significant overhead costs to go from nothing to steady-state instantaneously would be enough to scare me.

It's an interesting question as it was exactly a concern we had when we started to design the product we're currently working on (visualops.io). We realised that many people struggle hiring one (or more) ops people when they feel they're not big enough, although already too big to actually keep going without. Usually, at that point, from our experience, we see two types of choices: 1- as you're suggesting, hire an actual ops person (but switching from a platform like Heroku to something like AWS where everything should be configured manually, and constantly updated, may require more than one person in some cases...) 2- keep on using platforms like Heroku (and get ripped off). We have been ourselves in this situation when we have launched the first version of our product, and are now happy users of our own solution ;)

I don't think with the way technology is now, even without utilizing all the advanced services that AWS offers (so simply using the basics like ec2 / s3 / ebs / etc) you need a full full time ops person until you're paying 50k/month + in server hosting, on AWS reserved instances.

Well it all depends of your application and which level of automation you're looking for. If your growth require you to often scale your infrastructure, and you want to save your developers to deal with operations, then you may need someone.

I think people forget Heroku is a PaaS not a hosting provider. The premium is the cost of not hiring said person.

Sounds like you'd be better off purchasing bare metal than on any public cloud.

Our spending is peanuts compared to what others spend on AWS. A few hundred thousand dollars a year is pittance -- there is actual pain from purchasing bare metal, maintaining / colocating, etc. AWS offers just the right amount of flexibility and pricing with reserved instances, and they keep driving prices down. The only unfortunate thing is their largest instances aren't beefy enough for some use cases.

Keep in mind that heroku runs in US-East - if something isn't working for you on their platform, you can just run it yourself and point your app at it. We run our own database on EC2 and it works fine.

The rent is too damn high!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com