Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 97 posts

Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button

#51

Post by latchkey »

sungrokshim wrote: post #46
latchkey wrote: post #32

I personally don't get it. You can start on GCP today, without being tied to GCP much at all. It isn't even expensive to do so. Is there something I'm missing here? Cloud Functions are just a http handler with no hard dependencies on GCP. Cloud Tasks are just a handler and the tasks just hit your Cloud Functions. Cloud SQL is just postgres. You connect your github with actions that CI/CD auto deploy to the above. If…

As long as the cloud providers of the world keep inevitably converging to, often against their own will, a single standard for each piece of the infrastructure (e.g. k8s, postgres, S3), most things that you deploy on the cloud will remain portable. You are never truly locked-in. Similarly, if you want to, you can move away even from a PaaS that is explicitly designed to lock you in to another cloud provider. And as I…

> We want the process of moving from Porter Cloud to one of the hyperscalers as arbitrary as a click of a button.

What I don't understand is why someone would start with Porter Cloud.

Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button

#52

Post by sungrokshim »

danpalmer wrote: post #47
latchkey wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ouch, that's an absurd comparison. Instead of commenting nonsense, how about explaining to me how I'm missing the mark here? Let's break it down a bit... "Porter takes care of a lot of generic DevOps work for you (like setting up CI/CD, containerizing your applications, autoscaling, SSL certificates, setting up a reverse proxy)." All of this is done for you on GCP with the aforementioned services. "Porter Cloud for a…

I love GCP (did a migration to it at my last place), but I think like all cloud providers, it's a lot more "some assembly required" than Porter looks like, or like Heroku used to be back in the day. To my knowledge GCP doesn't have a git-push deployment. Cloud Run might be the closest thing if you do a Docker push, but that is just one part, then you need a database, still need CI/CD, etc. It's close. And while I lik…

OP here. Cloud Run actually does have a git-push deployment and is pretty easy to use. This is why I preemptively added this bit in the post:

> [1] By “big three clouds” we mean the lower-level primitives of each cloud provider. We don’t mean their higher level offerings like AWS App Runner, Google Cloud Run, or Azure App Service, since those run into the same PaaS problems described above.

Porter is explicitly designed to be a competitor to these services that is 1) more flexible 2) cloud-agnostic 3) more cost-effective. Many of our users come from Cloud Run because they need to customize networking settings (timeouts, websockets, etc.) or autoscaling behavior, not to mention the rather expensive cost (taking as an example a machine with 2 vCPU and 4GB RAM, Cloud Run is around 3~4x the cost of what equivalent compute would cost as a VM).

Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button

#54

Post by mickael-kerjean »

dangoodmanUT wrote: post #37
latchkey wrote: post #32

I personally don't get it. You can start on GCP today, without being tied to GCP much at all. It isn't even expensive to do so. Is there something I'm missing here? Cloud Functions are just a http handler with no hard dependencies on GCP. Cloud Tasks are just a handler and the tasks just hit your Cloud Functions. Cloud SQL is just postgres. You connect your github with actions that CI/CD auto deploy to the above. If…

You're just like the dropbox launch just use ftp guy

The ftp guy is the spark that inspire me to work on a storage independant web ui as I was trying to understand what in the actual FTP protocol was missing to make it happen. Turns out, it works and file manager are great abstraction to a lot more things than FTP alone and that oss project has been used by a couple millions people around the world (https://github.com/mickael-kerjean/filestash). If the FTP guy ever see this, I owe you a couple beers!

Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button

#55

Post by seffect »

I think your natural competition here is:

1. Things like Digital Ocean that make it easy and can scale up

2. The PaaS offerings of the major clouds for example Microft Azure Appspaces.

I think your advantage might be that you could eject into something more enterprise ready perhaps with Terraform/k8s etc. You could also sell consulting time to help the ejector transition to cloud. Because rearchitecting is part of the issue but the new devops and maintenance load is another issue people will need to deal with.

Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button

#56

Post by zackify »

seffect wrote: post #55

I think your natural competition here is: 1. Things like Digital Ocean that make it easy and can scale up 2. The PaaS offerings of the major clouds for example Microft Azure Appspaces. I think your advantage might be that you could eject into something more enterprise ready perhaps with Terraform/k8s etc. You could also sell consulting time to help the ejector transition to cloud. Because rearchitecting is part of th…

Fly.io is too good and no reason to leave it. I am enjoying it much more than DO too

Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button

#57

Post by zackify »

latchkey wrote: post #32

I personally don't get it. You can start on GCP today, without being tied to GCP much at all. It isn't even expensive to do so. Is there something I'm missing here? Cloud Functions are just a http handler with no hard dependencies on GCP. Cloud Tasks are just a handler and the tasks just hit your Cloud Functions. Cloud SQL is just postgres. You connect your github with actions that CI/CD auto deploy to the above. If…

I agree, people act like these big providers are so difficult. Almost all of them offer some form of container deployments that takes 30 minutes to setup a GitHub action workflow for, and as long as you keep using open source stuff, like postgres on cloudsql, you are never locked in

Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button

#58

Post by latchkey »

sungrokshim wrote: post #52
danpalmer wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love GCP (did a migration to it at my last place), but I think like all cloud providers, it's a lot more "some assembly required" than Porter looks like, or like Heroku used to be back in the day. To my knowledge GCP doesn't have a git-push deployment. Cloud Run might be the closest thing if you do a Docker push, but that is just one part, then you need a database, still need CI/CD, etc. It's close. And while I lik…

OP here. Cloud Run actually does have a git-push deployment and is pretty easy to use. This is why I preemptively added this bit in the post: > [1] By “big three clouds” we mean the lower-level primitives of each cloud provider. We don’t mean their higher level offerings like AWS App Runner, Google Cloud Run, or Azure App Service, since those run into the same PaaS problems described above. Porter is explicitly desig…

That is why I said Cloud Functions instead of Run.

Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button

#59

Post by adenta »

sungrokshim wrote: post #43
adenta wrote: post #33

talk to me about GPU’s? I saw some gpu_node config stuff in your documentation a couple days ago. If Porter can host GPU’s, that’s a superpower render.com doesn’t have.

We support GPUs if you use standard Porter on any of the three cloud providers. Also coming soon to Porter Cloud.

Is there a mailing list I can sign up for to know when this drops?

Excited to try out the product! Render was a better heroku, but porter can do all sorts of cool HIPPA stuff that render charges $500/mo. for

Re: Show HN: Porter Cloud – PaaS with an eject button

#60

Post by scottmessinger »

jusrhee wrote: post #39
scottmessinger wrote: post #26

Very cool! As someone pointed out, your github repo says it was archived: https://github.com/porter-dev/porter-archive Naively, I would think Porter cloud would just be a managed version of your porter-dev/porter-archive. Could you talk about how it's a different product than before? Did the code base change significantly?

Our archived repo functioned as more of a Kubernetes-centered dashboard - Porter Cloud is intended to offer a more complete PaaS experience including spinning up non-application resources like databases

Thanks! Followup question: After you "eject" the app and start paying AWS directly but continue using porter, is the experience more like the archived repo? Or, is it still Porter Cloud just with different billing underneath?
Post reply on HN