|
|
|
|
|
by laurasanders
4482 days ago
|
|
That has indeed been the way for many years and a valid worry. And yet, we're changing it. A lot of hosting companies are white labelled without any major differences. Our tech was completely written from the ground up to combat this. As said in the marketing materials; if you have a spike, we handle it fine. We've done intensive testing to make sure that being linked to from Hacker News, or anywhere else that gives you a big influx of traffic, won't make your server go down. We wrote this because we too were tired of the landscape, and we wanted people like ourselves not to have to suffer with this anymore. |
|
As far as I can see, your architecture is explicitly limited to a single instance of each app at a time, so there is almost no scope for scaling at all in the first place. The only reason it would probably not be an issue in practice is that the request limits are absurdly low. The story is further weakened by no mention anywhere of what happens when the paid for quota is exceeded -- this seems like a key detail that's completely glossed over.
I can see the point of selling a system like this to less technical users based on an ease of use or the conceptual simplicity of an application as a filesystem. Even if the suggested advantages, such as no need for deploying code and easy copy-paste for starting new projects, make me shudder a bit. But selling on scalability just makes no sense, it almost comes across as snake oil.