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

Heroku Beta Pricing

heroku.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 96 posts

Re: Heroku Beta Pricing

#61

Post by ryanSrich »

geoffharcourt wrote: post #47
jagthedrummer wrote: post #44

Here's an analysis of how these rumored changes will affect apps of various sizes. http://www.octolabs.com/blogs/octoblog/2015/03/31/analysis-o... tl;dr : Current paying customers will see a discount of up to 30%. Current freeloaders will have to pay $84/year for functionality equivalent to what they get now. Anyone who is technical enough to use Heroku effectively can charge AT LEAST $84/hour for their time, meaning…

That's an excellent point. The $84/year tier also allows users to keep an app always on without needing a second dyno, which used to be the requirement to prevent apps from sleeping.

I used to just ping my sites on the free to tier to keep them alive using uptime robot. I wonder if that was against the TOS?

Re: Heroku Beta Pricing

#63

Post by X-Istence »

torkalork wrote: post #27
Igglyboo wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I run my companies hubot on a $5 a month Digital Ocean instance. It's also far easier than using Heroku because it's just a regular linux server and not a managed/restricted instance.

I also use the $5-tier Digital Ocean droplets to host some side projects. I've had some processes die semi-regularly, though, because the OS does a scheduled maintenance task that maxes out the 512mb RAM. Adding a swap file seems to have taken care of it, though. I wish they enabled them by default on their smallest droplets: https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-add-...

Or try running an alternate operating system that doesn't run a task semi-regularly that uses up all of your RAM.

Re: Heroku Beta Pricing

#65

Post by JoshDoody »

mark_l_watson wrote: post #48

I think this is great! I was never very comfortable with the free tier where apps are swapped out (leading to a long loading request time) after an idle period. A low cost $7/month plan for a dyno to always be running sounds good.

My thoughts exactly. This seems like a much cheaper way to have an always-on app.

Re: Heroku Beta Pricing

#66

Post by pvh »

ryanSrich wrote: post #61
geoffharcourt wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an excellent point. The $84/year tier also allows users to keep an app always on without needing a second dyno, which used to be the requirement to prevent apps from sleeping.

I used to just ping my sites on the free to tier to keep them alive using uptime robot. I wonder if that was against the TOS?

Yep.

Re: Heroku Beta Pricing

#67

Post by glesica »

tortilla wrote: post #57
imdsm wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most likely they will argue that you can use it 24 hours a day, just that they will cut the 750 free hours in half. Does that mean you'll pay $7 a month or $3.50 a month for a 24/7 dyno? I agree with you though, they might think they're kicking out X freeloaders, but how many of those freeloaders have production apps and how many of them are in decision making positions? If I have to leave, I'll move /everything/.

I was a freeloader for 5 or 6 low traffic sites. But now I have a production-grade app at over $700 a month.

Are you going to move your very significant app to another platform because of this? Seems like an absurd thing to do to save yourself maybe a couple hundred bucks a year...

Re: Heroku Beta Pricing

#68

Post by [deleted] »

Igglyboo wrote: post #18
bovermyer wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that just nuked my blog, and also my company's hubot. Ah well, guess I'll need to properly support that hubot now.

I run my companies hubot on a $5 a month Digital Ocean instance. It's also far easier than using Heroku because it's just a regular linux server and not a managed/restricted instance.

[deleted]

Re: Heroku Beta Pricing

#70

Post by nasmorn »

moe wrote: post #56
sleepyhead wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The database pricing looks pretty much like before. What is problematic about paying $50 for a database that you don't have to manage, has continous backups, dataclips, and ability to easily scale and set up replication for? How much would a db admin charge you per hour to do the same?

How much would a db admin charge you per hour to do the same? I think that's the wrong question. A better question would be why you don't just rent a $50 dedicated server and run everything, including the database, on that. If you think you need a "db admin" to do that then you should really re-evaluate your team.

Finding someone who can setup Postgres wal archiving and replication in only 6 hours per year is surely costing you 600$ in additional salary per year. I don't think your argument holds any merit at the level of hosting costs we talk about. Also as someone who does host stuff on a dedicated machine too, have you looked at what is involved in upgrading to say Postgres 9.3 from 9.1. If you have single server you will just not do it unless you are also big into Russian roulette.
Post reply on HN