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

Running costs for running a web app

cushionapp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 225 posts

Re: Running costs for running a web app

#181

Post by manigandham »

vemv wrote: post #106
Negitivefrags wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dividing your architecture into separate components will probably cause you more downtime and have much worse performance. Less servers and components mean less things to break. Grab a dedicated server and host your shit on it (have a DB replica because losing data sucks, but that is easy). You will be able to run like that for much longer than you probably suspect and the chance of downtime will be massively reduced…

Workers are a must for any minimally sophisticated web application. You cannot degrade HTTP response time (and whole app server performance) just because you are performing work synchronously before the request finishes. Similarly, if the work you are performing has any value for your business, it must be retryable, and the queued items must be safely stored (i.e. don't use a single Redis server - use something distr…

"workers" are application level architecture decisions, not machine/server level. If you need to (which most webapps dont) then do so.

Re: Running costs for running a web app

#182

Post by j45 »

applecore wrote: post #180
patio11 wrote: post #169

Running a business is much, much more expensive than you'd expect if you've never done it before. I started one on $60 so I get the mindset which has people suggesting that this story represents prolifigate spending, but oh my goodness, it's practically a shoestring . There is an individual thing in the AR deployment which exists for no technical purpose to get us a piece of paper issued by Rackspace which we need fo…

What's more remarkable is the number of services and integrations that are necessary to keep a SaaS product running. Even on a shoestring budget, that's a lot of complexity to manage.

More than the cost, the micro-integration hell that you start to get into and out of (when swapping out) can be a real slow down to building and shipping features

Re: Running costs for running a web app

#183

Post by biot »

patja wrote: post #56
jtchang wrote: post #4

Heroku is without a doubt one of the more expensive options out there. SSL being billed per month? Yikes. SSL really should be standard.

It can get worse. Azure websites charges $39/month per cert for full IP-based SSL

Unless you need to support ancient devices, SNI SSL on Azure is $9/month.

Re: Running costs for running a web app

#184

Post by idlewords »

patio11 wrote: post #169

Running a business is much, much more expensive than you'd expect if you've never done it before. I started one on $60 so I get the mindset which has people suggesting that this story represents prolifigate spending, but oh my goodness, it's practically a shoestring . There is an individual thing in the AR deployment which exists for no technical purpose to get us a piece of paper issued by Rackspace which we need fo…

I have to strongly disagree with you. I run my own online thing and find that keeping expenses down has given me a huge competitive advantage over similar sites.

I would also stress that there are other reasons to keep complexity down, like hating to do paperwork (or work of any kind).

Re: Running costs for running a web app

#185

Post by rbritton »

fareesh wrote: post #157

At our agency we tend to have a lot of low budget projects, plus we like to keep expenses low if there's a relatively small overhead in return. For saving on costs we use: - Bitbucket over Github (Private repos are free, although Github has more features, so it depends on how much you use really) - Email Hosting Zoho over Google (FREE): We tend to recommend Zoho to single entrepreneurs since it offers 10 accounts for…

There's also StartSSL (https://www.startssl.com) for certificates too. You can get basic ones for free or pay a relatively cheap amount to get more a higher tier validation. I've been using them for years successfully, and when combined with SNI, I no longer need to pay for a multi-domain certificate.

Re: Running costs for running a web app

#186

Post by shubhamjain »

patio11 wrote: post #169

Running a business is much, much more expensive than you'd expect if you've never done it before. I started one on $60 so I get the mindset which has people suggesting that this story represents prolifigate spending, but oh my goodness, it's practically a shoestring . There is an individual thing in the AR deployment which exists for no technical purpose to get us a piece of paper issued by Rackspace which we need fo…

I am sorry but what is AR deployment?

Re: Running costs for running a web app

#187

Post by barry-cotter »

shubhamjain wrote: post #186
patio11 wrote: post #169

Running a business is much, much more expensive than you'd expect if you've never done it before. I started one on $60 so I get the mindset which has people suggesting that this story represents prolifigate spending, but oh my goodness, it's practically a shoestring . There is an individual thing in the AR deployment which exists for no technical purpose to get us a piece of paper issued by Rackspace which we need fo…

I am sorry but what is AR deployment?

Appointment Reminder deployment, i.e. deploying one of the SAAS websites Patrick owns

Re: Running costs for running a web app

#188

Post by nostrademons »

yeukhon wrote: post #79
thedevil wrote: post #71

Anyone here have any thoughts on AppEngine vs Heroku? I use AppEngine for my experimental projects because I can get a simple data model and some handlers running in minutes and a (supposedly automatically scalable) useful backend up in less than a day, and at very low cost. (Virtually free if I use an *.appspot.com domain). You do get lockin issues but don't you also get lockin from Heroku? Is there big advantages t…

Heroku offers more integration addon/services than App Engine ever does. Heroku was definitely invented to compete with App Engine. Google did not have a Cloud Platform at the beginning for you to create and integrate MySQL as a service with App Engine app.

Other way around, actually. AppEngine came out in April 2008; Heroku in November 2007:

https://web.archive.org/web/20071105005403/http://heroku.com...

It's fairly likely they were working on them in parallel without knowledge of each other, though.

Re: Running costs for running a web app

#189

Post by wahsd »

Two things, I don't like that they didn't amortize the fixed costs like the font, carousel lib, and certs because it created those ugly and meaningless spikes. In addition, the site seems to break the back button in Safari(the new IE) on OSX-EC

Re: Running costs for running a web app

#190

Post by ing33k »

misiti3780 wrote: post #57

This is the first time I have ever heard of Papertrail. I really hate loggly and am looking for a better option - can anyone shed any light on if this is a good option ? Which log aggregation services is everyone using ?

I have tried a bunch of them and settled with https://logentries.com
Post reply on HN