NodeChef is a good alternative where you don't have to do the tedious job of managing servers. https://www.nodechef.com/

Looks nice. But I put in 2 apps with 4 cpu and 1gb of RAM each. And I selected MySQL database with 1gb of RAM and 30gb storage.

And it quoted me $400/month.

Are they allowed to host a MongoDB for you? Isn't there something in the license about that not being allowed?

Not of the versions they offer.

Maybe all you need is NodeChef. Saves you time and money. https://www.nodechef.com/

Unless I misread the article, but the writer makes a claim of having to support 100 req/sec with about 50 instances. "For Fargate, this meant deploying 50 instances of my container with pretty beefy settings — 8 GB of memory and 4 full CPU units per container instance.". If the api service was just returning some data with a few manupilations, then that is quite inefficient. At NodeChef ( https://www.nodechef.com ), there are users running over 1000 req/sec with just around 12 containers each with 512 MB ram and 2 CPUs.

Original author here.

The two sentences right before what you quoted are helpful:

"I’m not a Docker or Flask performance expert, and that’s not the goal of this exercise. To remedy this, I decided to bump the specs on my deployments.

The general goal for this bakeoff is to get a best-case outcome for each of these architectures, rather than an apples-to-apples comparison of cost vs performance."

I wasn't trying to squeeze out every ounce of performance and determine the minimum number of instances to handle 100 req/sec. I was trying to normalize across the three patterns as much as possible to see best-case performance. I didn't want resource constraints to be an excuse.

I think there’s a pretty big flaw in your benchmark because that failure rate is _insane_ and you shouldn’t need anywhere near that hardware to accomplish this. I don’t think your data is credible as a result.

NodeChef does not use Dokku under the hood but you can achieve what you want and more with the platform. https://www.nodechef.com/

Another alternative to deploy a Rails and PostgreSQL app is on NodeChef where developers have three simple options to choose from to deploy apps. https://www.nodechef.com/

NodeChef MongoDB hosting is an option worth considering for hosting databases. https://www.nodechef.com/mongodb-hosting

Nodechef provides a lot more for startups and budgets of any size. https://nodechef.com/

You may find NodeChef's object storage the right solution. https://nodechef.com/s3-compatible-object-storage

Thanks for the suggestion, but a dollar per gigabyte per month is ridiculous unless you're downloading everything in your store eleven times a month. Even S3 only costs $0.02/GB storage and $0.09/GB egress.

NodeChef's object storage is very attractive option especially with no data transfer charges. Available in two regions. https://nodechef.com/s3-compatible-object-storage

At $1/GB, it's the most expensive option mentioned on this page by far. Even with GCP's pricey storage, you would have to download your data 10x for this to make sense (or 88x with DO), and that's before considering cross-cloud/transit costs.

Also since you're the cofounder of nodechef, you should add a disclaimer when mentioning your own product.