heruko performance vs shared hosting performance
69 views
Skip to first unread message
John Merlino
Apr 4, 2013, 10:38:51 AM4/4/13
to Ruby on Rails: Talk
This guy is using godaddy shared hosting for his wordpress blog. I
think it's currently $5 a month. I was thinking to use Rails for his
next project. But I wouldn't want costs to exceed more than $20 per
month. I contacted heroku and they said that 1 dyno is free to host
your ruby on rails app and each additional dyno is $30 a month. A
single Heroku dyno provides 512mb ram and 1024mb swap. It has 4
(virtual) CPU cores (Intel Xeon X5550 @ 2.67GHz). 512mb ram doesn't
seem to be much, particularly for memory-intensive processing.
Although, the multiple CPU cores may enhance multi-threading. That
said, this really isn't going to be a memory hog. Now I was curious to
compare these specs with that of a shared hosting environment (where
many different customers share the same resources). For example,
godaddy says this about their shared hosting "Currently there is not a
‘set number’ for CPU resources. Mostly because we have multiple
hardware platforms in the wild. Simply put, if your processes degrade
performance for other customers on the server(s) we will take actions
to protect the other customers." So that's not much of a comparison.
But does anyone have any experience on shared hosting (I know that
most shared hosting environments dont support ruby - but Im sure you
used it for other platfroms like asp.net/php) vs heroku, and if
someone is used to shared hosting with moderate traffic to their site,
would you notice a significant performance downgrade if the site is
moved to heroku on 1 dyno?
think it's currently $5 a month. I was thinking to use Rails for his
next project. But I wouldn't want costs to exceed more than $20 per
month. I contacted heroku and they said that 1 dyno is free to host
your ruby on rails app and each additional dyno is $30 a month. A
single Heroku dyno provides 512mb ram and 1024mb swap. It has 4
(virtual) CPU cores (Intel Xeon X5550 @ 2.67GHz). 512mb ram doesn't
seem to be much, particularly for memory-intensive processing.
Although, the multiple CPU cores may enhance multi-threading. That
said, this really isn't going to be a memory hog. Now I was curious to
compare these specs with that of a shared hosting environment (where
many different customers share the same resources). For example,
godaddy says this about their shared hosting "Currently there is not a
‘set number’ for CPU resources. Mostly because we have multiple
hardware platforms in the wild. Simply put, if your processes degrade
performance for other customers on the server(s) we will take actions
to protect the other customers." So that's not much of a comparison.
But does anyone have any experience on shared hosting (I know that
most shared hosting environments dont support ruby - but Im sure you
used it for other platfroms like asp.net/php) vs heroku, and if
someone is used to shared hosting with moderate traffic to their site,
would you notice a significant performance downgrade if the site is
moved to heroku on 1 dyno?
John Merlino
Apr 4, 2013, 10:38:53 AM4/4/13
to Ruby on Rails: Talk
Matthew Witek
Apr 4, 2013, 10:45:29 AM4/4/13
to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com
One thing to note on the heroku free service. They will shutdown your dyno after 30 mins of inactivity and the next user to visit the site will have a lengthy load time since the dyno has to restart on the next request. If you do decide to go with heroku pay for the extra dyno and you won't have to worry about the idling.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to rubyonrails-ta...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Jason Hsu, Android developer
Apr 4, 2013, 11:04:30 AM4/4/13
to rubyonra...@googlegroups.com
Heroku is prohibitively expensive, and GoDaddy is the Wal-Mart of web hosts.
Why not use WebFaction? It's much better than GoDaddy and much cheaper than Heroku.
Why not use WebFaction? It's much better than GoDaddy and much cheaper than Heroku.
Hassan Schroeder
Apr 4, 2013, 11:08:46 AM4/4/13
to rubyonrails-talk
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 7:38 AM, John Merlino <stoi...@aol.com> wrote:
would you notice a significant performance downgrade if the site is
moved to heroku on 1 dyno?
Given that the heroku entry tier is free and super easy to set up, why
not just deploy an existing app you're familiar with and compare the
performance yourself?
Or develop the new app, deploying to heroku as you go, and see if
the performance of *that specific app* -- which is the only thing that
really counts -- is acceptable. If not, pay to upgrade or move on :-)
Hassan Schroeder ------------------------ hassan.s...@gmail.com
http://about.me/hassanschroeder
twitter: @hassan
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages