I have a commercial Radiant-based website that I manage for a small-
business client. They pay me a flat annual fee to do so, but lacking
any other clients to split the cost between (and I have no plans of
getting more), their fee doesn't cover the entire cost of the hosting
service I use for it.

What recommendations do others have for low-cost Rails hosting?

--
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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.

Search Discussions

  • Jason white at Oct 6, 2011 at 9:18 pm
    depending on the level of traffic, i recommend heroku
    On Thu, Oct 6, 2011 at 4:13 PM, trans wrote:

    I have a commercial Radiant-based website that I manage for a small-
    business client. They pay me a flat annual fee to do so, but lacking
    any other clients to split the cost between (and I have no plans of
    getting more), their fee doesn't cover the entire cost of the hosting
    service I use for it.

    What recommendations do others have for low-cost Rails hosting?

    --
    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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
    --
    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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Trans at Oct 7, 2011 at 12:40 pm

    On Oct 6, 5:18 pm, jason white 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 ?

    --
    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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Martin Wawrusch at Oct 7, 2011 at 12:45 pm
    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 wrote:


    On Oct 6, 5:18 pm, jason white 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 ?

    --
    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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
    --
    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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Danaka Kahn at Oct 7, 2011 at 2:34 pm

    On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Martin Wawrusch 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 wrote:


    On Oct 6, 5:18 pm, jason white 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.

    --
    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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
    --
    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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
    --
    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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Trans at Oct 9, 2011 at 2:19 am

    On Oct 7, 10:33 am, Danaka Kahn wrote:
    On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Martin Wawrusch 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 wrote:
    On Oct 6, 5:18 pm, jason white 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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Jonny Dalgleish at Oct 9, 2011 at 8:22 am
    I've been using Heroku for a while, and if you are doing a few small apps, I suggest setting up some CRON jobs to ping your server every 15 minutes or so… The non paid service will shut down your site when idle for a certain period of time… if you ping your site intermiddely, in theory it shouldn't shut down.

    I found this important when showing working prototypes to clients, as I didn't want to pay to host until it was ready for production, but a 30 second lag when showing a client, wasn't going to cut it.

    Let me know if this helps,

    Jonny



    On 09/10/2011, at 1:19 PM, trans wrote:


    On Oct 7, 10:33 am, Danaka Kahn wrote:
    On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Martin Wawrusch 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 wrote:
    On Oct 6, 5:18 pm, jason white 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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
    --
    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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
  • Martin Wawrusch at Oct 9, 2011 at 8:39 am
    An alternative option to that is to create an google office account for each
    site, create an email there, use that email to sign up for pingdom.com and
    have them poll your site. Solves a couple of problems at once.
    On Sat, Oct 8, 2011 at 7:24 PM, Jonny Dalgleish wrote:

    I've been using Heroku for a while, and if you are doing a few small apps,
    I suggest setting up some CRON jobs to ping your server every 15 minutes or
    so… The non paid service will shut down your site when idle for a certain
    period of time… if you ping your site intermiddely, in theory it shouldn't
    shut down.

    I found this important when showing working prototypes to clients, as I
    didn't want to pay to host until it was ready for production, but a 30
    second lag when showing a client, wasn't going to cut it.

    Let me know if this helps,

    Jonny



    On 09/10/2011, at 1:19 PM, trans wrote:


    On Oct 7, 10:33 am, Danaka Kahn wrote:
    On Fri, Oct 7, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Martin Wawrusch 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 wrote:
    On Oct 6, 5:18 pm, jason white 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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
    --
    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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
    --
    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 rubyonrails-talk@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rubyonrails-talk+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.

Related Discussions

Discussion Navigation
viewthread | post
Discussion Overview
grouprubyonrails-talk @
categoriesrubyonrails
postedOct 6, '11 at 9:14p
activeOct 9, '11 at 8:39a
posts8
users5
websiterubyonrails.org
irc#RubyOnRails

People

Translate

site design / logo © 2021 Grokbase