Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jumpstarter launches “next-gen hosting”, promising sub-second server spin-up

gigaom.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 44 posts

Re: Jumpstarter launches “next-gen hosting”, promising sub-second server spin-up

#21

Post by laurasanders »

AznHisoka wrote: post #17
laurasanders wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all relative. We save you time, and make sure your service is always up. We work with you through any pain points you have. If your server goes down, and you lose an hour of your time. You've already lost that difference. You also assume nothing is cached, whereas only if those were all uniques would that be likely. Which is generally unlikely. Our price is based around quality. Both the fact that we grow with y…

Hmm.. I wouldn't be interested then. Seems like this is geared more towards the non-HN audience: people who need their hands to be held.

It's aimed at anyone who wants their hosting to be easy. It saves time and worry so you can just concentrate on your code without lots of hassle.

Re: Jumpstarter launches “next-gen hosting”, promising sub-second server spin-up

#22

Post by mattmanser »

laurasanders wrote: post #10
dav- wrote: post #6

The free development plan is pretty neat, but other than that it just seems like another shared PHP host.

Far from it. You never have to worry about if other people are being resource intensive for one major reason. And if you got Hacker News'd, rather than punishing you and everyone else – we'd instead give you more resources to deal with it :)

If someone got Hacker News'd they'd immediately owe you $799 by the look of those prices.

It's like you guys don't know anything about normal website traffic volumes, which isn't a good sign for a host.

Re: Jumpstarter launches “next-gen hosting”, promising sub-second server spin-up

#23

Post by laurasanders »

frade33 wrote: post #19
laurasanders wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We do need to add it to the website, and to our brand new Github FAQ we're in the process of building. But a request is a http request. :) Thanks for your feedback.

yeah I am aware of it, but my mom does not ;) on a sidenote, you have entered pretty much competitive market with tons of 'major players'. Deep down in our hearts we all know, what 'quality hosting mean'. They are all the same. some of them suck much other less. They all have down time. It's only up to you pay more or less for having almost same service from any of them. You are only good for them as long as, you hav…

That has indeed been the way for many years and a valid worry. And yet, we're changing it. A lot of hosting companies are white labelled without any major differences.

Our tech was completely written from the ground up to combat this. As said in the marketing materials; if you have a spike, we handle it fine. We've done intensive testing to make sure that being linked to from Hacker News, or anywhere else that gives you a big influx of traffic, won't make your server go down.

We wrote this because we too were tired of the landscape, and we wanted people like ourselves not to have to suffer with this anymore.

Re: Jumpstarter launches “next-gen hosting”, promising sub-second server spin-up

#24

Post by frade33 »

laurasanders wrote: post #23
frade33 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah I am aware of it, but my mom does not ;) on a sidenote, you have entered pretty much competitive market with tons of 'major players'. Deep down in our hearts we all know, what 'quality hosting mean'. They are all the same. some of them suck much other less. They all have down time. It's only up to you pay more or less for having almost same service from any of them. You are only good for them as long as, you hav…

That has indeed been the way for many years and a valid worry. And yet, we're changing it. A lot of hosting companies are white labelled without any major differences. Our tech was completely written from the ground up to combat this. As said in the marketing materials; if you have a spike, we handle it fine. We've done intensive testing to make sure that being linked to from Hacker News, or anywhere else that gives…

i am currently using $20/mo dreampress you know whom. how does it compare to it? I had HN spike, and website (wordpress) was pretty much calm. they say it beats $500/mo wordpress.com VIP and they are a reputable webhost. whom i am using since 2007

Re: Jumpstarter launches “next-gen hosting”, promising sub-second server spin-up

#26

Post by laurasanders »

mattmanser wrote: post #22
laurasanders wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Far from it. You never have to worry about if other people are being resource intensive for one major reason. And if you got Hacker News'd, rather than punishing you and everyone else – we'd instead give you more resources to deal with it :)

If someone got Hacker News'd they'd immediately owe you $799 by the look of those prices. It's like you guys don't know anything about normal website traffic volumes, which isn't a good sign for a host.

We won't be charging people extra or forcing them to change their plan if you have a sudden influx of visits from Hacker News or another site. We will consider that a temporary traffic spike and we will be happy that you are in the spotlight rather than trying to charge you more! The plans are based on your usual monthly usage, so if you continued to get the same number of requests monthly, we would talk to you at that point about upgrading.

Re: Jumpstarter launches “next-gen hosting”, promising sub-second server spin-up

#27

Post by sergiotapia »

I'm very interested in this. Do you guys support Rails 4, PostgreSQL? There are a few icons there in the landing page but no tooltips or anything to let me know what they are.

I want something in between DigitalOcean (barebones) and Heroku (configures everything but doesn't let you customize anything either) - this seems like a perfect fit.

Re: Jumpstarter launches “next-gen hosting”, promising sub-second server spin-up

#28

Post by laurasanders »

falconfunction wrote: post #25
laurasanders wrote: post #8

Hi! Laura from Jumpstarter here. :) Hoping to answer any questions.

Hi Laura! Where could I find more details/inspiration for your filesystem? It's great to see innovation in that area!

Thanks!

You can take a look at our technical tour page which has some information on it: http://jumpstarter.io/technical

We have also got a brand new wiki with lots of information, and we'll be continuing to add a lot more to it over the next few weeks: https://github.com/jumpstarter-io/help/wiki

Re: Jumpstarter launches “next-gen hosting”, promising sub-second server spin-up

#29

Post by AznHisoka »

laurasanders wrote: post #21
AznHisoka wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm.. I wouldn't be interested then. Seems like this is geared more towards the non-HN audience: people who need their hands to be held.

It's aimed at anyone who wants their hosting to be easy. It saves time and worry so you can just concentrate on your code without lots of hassle.

Hah, that's silly. If you wanted me to concentrate on coding,you'd help me with automated deployment, automated backup of my postgres db every night (even if it reaches 2 TB+ in space), etc, etc. Your solution isn't geared towards developers at all.

Re: Jumpstarter launches “next-gen hosting”, promising sub-second server spin-up

#30

Post by AznHisoka »

catinsocks wrote: post #20
laurasanders wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's all relative. We save you time, and make sure your service is always up. We work with you through any pain points you have. If your server goes down, and you lose an hour of your time. You've already lost that difference. You also assume nothing is cached, whereas only if those were all uniques would that be likely. Which is generally unlikely. Our price is based around quality. Both the fact that we grow with y…

Depending on the website 13 requests is kind of small, 20-30 requests for a regular page probably more likely with maybe 3 or 4 that can be cached on an unoptimized site and the rest being image assets for that particular page and so on. So with 300,000 I get something like 10,000-15,000 pageviews which is pretty much nothing.

What makes the "request" metric even more confusing is they say "Unlimited Data Transfer". Which means absolutely NOTHING if the # of requests is limited.
Post reply on HN