[tomlemon]

> If Heroku wasn't providing enough performance for their money (regardless of technical cause), then why did they stick around so long?

We didn't know how bad the performance was because Heroku's tools (logs and New Relic) reported incorrect performance data (i.e., they said requests weren't queuing when they were actually spending a ton of time queuing)

EDIT:

> Would Rap Genius still have sued if the documentation had been 100% correct and instead the problem was just plain old slow I/O on Heroku's side?

To be clear, we have no official association with http://herokuclassaction.com/ or the lawyer behind it – I actually found out about the site from the article's author when he interviewed me for the story.

(But I do think Heroku owes its customers a refund)

[swensel]

I don't think the issues with New Relic was necessarily Heroku's problem. Sure, Heroku did have some outdated info on their website and their logs may not be fully accurate, but I personally don't think that they should provide refunds for that. Solving the problems that have been raised would be a better service to their customers. Providing refunds probably doesn't help Heroku create a better service which is what I think will matter long term.

[jaggederest]

New Relic isn't Heroku's tool, man. It's like a car dealership selling you a Pioneer stereo.

[jacalata]

It's certainly not a disinterested third party that Heroku knows nothing about: http://news.heroku.com/news_releases/heroku-and-new-relic-pa...

[jaggederest]

Agreed, but it's not the one true monitoring system. I happen to be biased and think it's pretty good, but it's not a first-party monitoring system that they swore on a bible was correct.

[elbear]

Maybe they didn't swear on the bible, but when you use a tool from a company with which Heroku has a partnership, you expect that tool to give accurate readings. I would, at least.