Heroku needs to open source the testing (UPDATE: and data) it has used to claim 3X performance.
Adding a single graph for a $2000/mo DB, only performing read only transactions at 30% of its connection limit doesn't sound like putting the DB through its paces, and not real world.
> Heroku needs to open source the testing it has used to claim 3X performance.
The bottom of the bar chart says: Database performance was measured using pg bench with 150 concurrent clients performing read-only transactions.
pgbench[1] is a performance benchmarking tool that is part of PostgreSQL itself. It ships alongside the rest of the PostgreSQL binaries and is open source just like the rest of PostgreSQL.
I think this line from the article is interesting:
> In addition to Heroku Postgres DbX we are launching new database plans with double the memory and speed improvements of up to 3x at the same price as our current plan lineup. These plans feature an upgraded and re-engineered infrastructure to drastically improve their memory and speed.
I wonder if the bulk of the price/performance gains are from switching to newer instance types on AWS and/or switching the underlying storage from magnetic disks to the new SSD EBS volumes[2].
I would replace 'super interesting' with 'Super complex'. It's an example of how you can make the price of a $10-40/mo server complex to the extent that you need to read the blog post numerous times before you understand the construct.
And even then, one still needs to factor in the 'other' costs like I/O or IOPs, disk (persistent/EBS), IPs, internet and inter-region data transfer… before you understand the real cost.
And then you need to compare to other instance types (which soon will cover the full alphabet -- c, cg, cr, g, h, i, m, r, t… ) and then other providers.
You still have several unresolved issue -
1. Are your assumption on usage (cpu, I/O, internet etc) correct? Will they change?
2. How do I compare performance across providers for a given VM specification.
3. Can I get support when I need it?
And I am sure there are others
It certainly means there is room for other players who just make it simple, whether they are infrastructure folk (like DO/Linode etc) or platform plays that make the pricing understandable by the audience they are trying to target (like Heroku/Ninefold)
If you have a Rails App, you should consider Ninefold.com. You deploy direct from Github (or your Git Repo) and can have a VPS in the same security group if you need a utility box.
Depends on your use case. Advantage is around performance, and that you don't have to focus on the devops part of deployments that Capistrano requires. You get full access to servers & free SSL for rails apps. Strong engineering support.
What Sean has done with Spree reinforces how powerful the Ruby-on-rails open source community is in developing complex code. The challenge is to keep on top of the changing e-commerce landscape and demands of end users. Ultimately a e-commerce site/platform is only as good as its ability to close out a shopping cart transaction.
Its interesting that Docker was not discussed at RailsConf (Chicago April 2014). While its easy to conclude that Docker is more DevOps than Dev, it may also reflect how quickly Docker has moved from being non-production grade to being 1.0 this week
It's great to see more adoption of the open source Spree Ecommerce platform. Ultimately its open source platforms like Spree with all the community commits that will win out when it comes to platforms of choice. Elevating more examples of adoption is great
You should also consider the growing number of platform (PaaS) providers that make it super easy to manage the infrastructure yourself, and save you lots of money on the way. I believe that this is where most hosting providers are heading. Gone are the days that we should be dealing with infrastructure at the element level. While this is the wrong forum to list who to look at, if you have a Ruby on Rails app, look at Heroku or Ninefold
Adding a single graph for a $2000/mo DB, only performing read only transactions at 30% of its connection limit doesn't sound like putting the DB through its paces, and not real world.