Platform.sh - A good choice if you are considering continuous development
Use Cases and Deployment Scope
We are using Platform.sh to help host and handle some of our sites. As this is a Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS), we as a development team are able to enjoy more freedom in the server side in terms of how much access and control we have. We are using Platform.sh for almost 50 live sites and all of them are in our framework.
Pros
- As this is a PaaS it mitigates the complexities of a Cloud infrastructure like Acquia
- We are easily able to integrate our sites with different technologies like Python and Rest
- Helps us in providing Continuous Development cloud deployment hosting solution
Cons
- Platform.sh is not for beginners in my opinion. It has a good amount of learning curve in my opinion.
- As this is a PaaS, teams habituated with cloud infrastructure may miss the server side support from their cloud teams. I believe you will have to work on server bugs more on your own.
- During normal maintenance periods, integrations may fail if you are working on your sites in that time, in my experience.
Return on Investment
- Continuous development for sites in build has been fluid
- Platform.sh is really cost effective when comparing to AWS or Acquia Cloud
- On the other side, lack of server side support demands a big learning curve from its users in my opinion.
Alternatives Considered
Acquia Digital Experience Platform and Amazon Web Services
Other Software Used
Acquia Digital Experience Platform, Amazon Web Services, Pantheon
