11–20 of 93 posts
I'm sorry, but Tom Lehman sounds like a real dick to me in this interview. Heroku fucked up royally, sure, but why does RapGenius have to keep bashing them even after they started fixing things?
I'm sorry, but Tom Lehman sounds like a real dick to me in this interview. Heroku fucked up royally, sure, but why does RapGenius have to keep bashing them even after they started fixing things?
"Yes, one solution is to run a concurrent web server like Unicorn, but this is very difficult on Heroku since concurrent servers use more memory and Heroku’s dynos only have 512mb of ram, which is low for even processing one request simultaneously." Is this really accurate? 512mb is barely adequate for serving a single request at a time? I'm not a Rails developer, but that sounds terrible. I'm all for trading off som…
If I were to toss down an average, seems like ~100mb is what I see most of the time for non-trivial rails apps.
I'm sorry, but Tom Lehman sounds like a real dick to me in this interview. Heroku fucked up royally, sure, but why does RapGenius have to keep bashing them even after they started fixing things?
As a very happy NewRelic customer, I can say they did exactly what they advertise: Help monitor the application performance in the server (!). The queueing that now seems to be a problem of Heroku doesn't happen in the server that is processing the request, so by default it can't show the time needed.
Actually I'm quite sure that using one part of NewRelic, RUM (real user monitoring), should have shown the problem quite obviously. It shows how long a user had to wait for the request complete, including DNS lookup and network time. So if users waited longer for answers to their requests than the backend time should indicate, every developer should have taken this as a hint to investigate further.
Well, even using the application should have been enough to know that something is wrong when NR reports 250ms backend time, but page need at least 1200ms to return first byte to the customer.
"Yes, one solution is to run a concurrent web server like Unicorn, but this is very difficult on Heroku since concurrent servers use more memory and Heroku’s dynos only have 512mb of ram, which is low for even processing one request simultaneously." Is this really accurate? 512mb is barely adequate for serving a single request at a time? I'm not a Rails developer, but that sounds terrible. I'm all for trading off som…
It really depends on your application. A fresh rails app will take up ~30mb of memory (iirc, been a while since I checked). Thirty gems and 11,000 lines of code later, yes, it can spike to 256mb. If I were to toss down an average, seems like ~100mb is what I see most of the time for non-trivial rails apps.
I'm sorry, but Tom Lehman sounds like a real dick to me in this interview. Heroku fucked up royally, sure, but why does RapGenius have to keep bashing them even after they started fixing things?
What did they fix? They've side stepped any real solution for the root problem. As such, the only thing they've "fixed" is new relic, by making it report what is actually happening.
2. They wrote several blog posts explaining what happened and what is going to happen now (fixing) and in the future (more fixing)
3. They fixed their documentation
4. They helped a third party service to adapt their offering to better help their customers (NewRelic)
5. They offered their advice for better solutions for affected customers (Unicorn)
This sounds a lot like fixing to me.
And from what they did until know, this probably won't be the end of it. So why not just talk to them directly and see if it's enough for you - and if not just go somewhere else?
I'm sorry, but Tom Lehman sounds like a real dick to me in this interview. Heroku fucked up royally, sure, but why does RapGenius have to keep bashing them even after they started fixing things?
How exactly has Heroku fixed things? I think we can summarize Heroku's response to the whole affair as "oops! we got caught ..sorry!"
I'm sorry, but Tom Lehman sounds like a real dick to me in this interview. Heroku fucked up royally, sure, but why does RapGenius have to keep bashing them even after they started fixing things?
Thing is, somebody had to take Heroku to task over this, and until they fix the problem somebody has to keep taking them to task.
I worked in the office beside Tom's for a year (pre-Rap Genius). He's a sharp guy. More importantly, he's right. I don't think being nice has any relevance to Rap Genius' bottom line.
I'm sorry, but Tom Lehman sounds like a real dick to me in this interview. Heroku fucked up royally, sure, but why does RapGenius have to keep bashing them even after they started fixing things?
Especially the remarks about the costs and alleged fails of NewRelic seem totally wrong to me. As a very happy NewRelic customer, I can say they did exactly what they advertise: Help monitor the application performance in the server (!). The queueing that now seems to be a problem of Heroku doesn't happen in the server that is processing the request, so by default it can't show the time needed. Actually I'm quite sur…
"Yes, one solution is to run a concurrent web server like Unicorn, but this is very difficult on Heroku since concurrent servers use more memory and Heroku’s dynos only have 512mb of ram, which is low for even processing one request simultaneously." Is this really accurate? 512mb is barely adequate for serving a single request at a time? I'm not a Rails developer, but that sounds terrible. I'm all for trading off som…
We also recommend a minimum 1 Gb RAM to host Discourse,
though it may work with slightly less.
Guess it depends.