Hacker News Reader

It's not the pricing I don't like, it's the relationship between pricing and storage space. I doubt when I go from a 0.5GB database to a 1GB database that they have to double their support team as well.

Heroku's postgres is just as (or more) expensive as mongohq/mongolab, but they don't limit storage at all (except at the dev tier plans).

View on HN

<-- MongoHQ Cofounder here

Database storage space correlates pretty well to the management complexity, at least with our customer base.

Offering unlimited storage on a DB is somewhat disingenuous, there are effective resource limits that matter long before disk space and those (RAM/IO capacity) are the things that cost actual money.

is there a possibility of foregoing EBS storage, using instance storage, and creating incremental backups to S3 using a secondary server on a replica set? is there a reason this would be a bad idea? seems like it would cost a lot less.

Agreed. I have to do things like store large things in Amazon S3 when I'd really rather just stick it in GridFS. The pricing is just way to high to do anything else.

GridFS is great for convenience, but blobs are not Mongo's strength. Large files should almost always be stored in something like S3, regardless of price.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com