On Oct 7, 10:33 am, Danaka Kahn <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Martin Wawrusch <[email protected]> wrote: > > No, it is 0. There website is confusing, they are aware of this and are > > hopefully clarifying this, > > > On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 5:39 AM, trans <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> On Oct 6, 5:18 pm, jason white <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > depending on the level of traffic, i recommend heroku > > >> I've heard this recommendation before, but isn't the minimum cost of > >> heroku $36/mo ? > > Yeah - they are $0 to get started, then you pay to increase > bandwidth/throughput. I am not sure how it goes if you start getting a lot > of volume in terms of how the cost of heroku compares to others, but for the > sheer ease and slickness of easy deployments, creating multiple environments > (such as staging vs production), automated backups available (at least for > pg), and so much more, unless someone has a specific reason not to use them, > heroku is amazing. I hope their model is the general wave of the future, at > least for us who would rather create functionality than configure boxes.
Indeed. I fully agree about the great features. So I might try it. In fact, come to think of it, I might try contacting them directly and see what their take on my kind of business case is. Thanks! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
