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

You might not need Kubernetes

blog.jessfraz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–319 of 319 posts

Re: You might not need Kubernetes

#311

Post by ngrilly »

movedx wrote: post #309
ngrilly wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for following up! > Yeah I use a DigitalOcean load balancer in front of the servers. Why the load balancer if the app only serves family and friends, and maintenance windows are okay? It should be able to run on a single server. > They make things complicated for a few seconds of downtime In some cases, it's more than "a few seconds of downtime". In one of the apps I maintain, some requests accept file uploads…

> Why the load balancer if the app only serves family and friends, and maintenance windows are okay? It should be able to run on a single server. I use DO to manage the DNS for the domain. I use their LB to manage the TLS cert for the domain. By doing this I don't have to manage TLS connections in my application nor deal with certification creation and rotations. DO are doing it for me for $10/month. That's a bargain…

Right, DigitalOcean load balancer is really handy!

I'm curious to know what you think of swarm after you tried it :-)

Re: You might not need Kubernetes

#312

Post by mohaine »

spookthesunset wrote: post #219
mohaine wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. At some point you get tried of trying to find an underutilized box to launch a new service. This is when you should start looking for something more complicated.

> This. At some point you get tried of trying to find an underutilized box to launch a new service. This is when you should start looking for something more complicated. But that is the point of containers. To abstract away the need to worry about "finding underutilized boxes". The second you said "find an underutilized box" my mind went immediately to a pile of what I call "special snowflake" boxes. Each one is it's…

That should have been:

At some point you get tried of trying to find an underutilized box to launch a new docker container.

At this point any service should just be a docker container but you still have to find a home with enough memory, cpu, and temp space to run the container.

Re: You might not need Kubernetes

#313

Post by fmajid »

meritt wrote: post #133
combatentropy wrote: post #19

Some day I would like a powwow with all you hackers about whether 99% of apps need more than a $5 droplet from Digital Ocean, set up the old-fashioned way, LAMP --- though feel free to switch out the letters: BSD instead of Linux, Nginx instead of Apache, PostgreSQL instead of MySQL, Ruby or Python instead of PHP. I manage dozens of apps for thousands of users. The apps are all on one server, its load average around…

As someone who runs a very successful data business on a simple stack (php, cron, redis, mariadb), I definitely agree. We've avoided the latest trends/tools and just keep humming along while outperforming and outdelivering our competitors. We're also revenue-funded so no outside VC pushing us to be flashy, but I will definitely admit it makes hiring difficult. Candidates see our stack as boring and bland, which we ma…

I have never seen a VC care about what software stack you use. I did have one particularly geeky one asking me for advice on whether he should invest in MariaDB.

Your point about recruiting is spot-on, however. It's not that all candidates necessarily believe in the cargo cult, but they have their own career and employability to consider.

Re: You might not need Kubernetes

#314

Post by pythonaut_16 »

ngrilly wrote: post #225
pythonaut_16 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally use Docker combined with a $5 droplet on Digital Ocean. This makes it easy to spin up multiple applications and sites without worrying about conflicting dependencies, and docker-compose gives me most of the benefits of orchestration tools (e.g. Kubernetes) that actually matter for my small scale usage. Also Traefik makes a nice load balancer for this uage

Interesting! When you rollout a new version, how do you coordinate docker-compose and Traefik to avoid any user-facing downtime (no 502)?

The simplest answer is I am the only user currently so it doesn't matter. Even with users, a short down time to bring down the old images and bring up the new images should be manageable. If I ever got to a point where that wasn't sufficient then I would consider that project successful enough to merit investment into zero downtime strategies and probably its own VPS as well.

From a more technical side, I haven't seen an issue with Traefik when I take a container down and back up again. The only delay I would anticipate is when you bring a new service online for the first time and Traefik detects it and configures + fetches LetsEncrypt certs for it.

Re: You might not need Kubernetes

#315

Post by ngrilly »

pythonaut_16 wrote: post #314
ngrilly wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting! When you rollout a new version, how do you coordinate docker-compose and Traefik to avoid any user-facing downtime (no 502)?

The simplest answer is I am the only user currently so it doesn't matter. Even with users, a short down time to bring down the old images and bring up the new images should be manageable. If I ever got to a point where that wasn't sufficient then I would consider that project successful enough to merit investment into zero downtime strategies and probably its own VPS as well. From a more technical side, I haven't see…

Thanks.

Re: You might not need Kubernetes

#316

Post by ADefenestrator »

pmarreck wrote: post #207
meritt wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who runs a very successful data business on a simple stack (php, cron, redis, mariadb), I definitely agree. We've avoided the latest trends/tools and just keep humming along while outperforming and outdelivering our competitors. We're also revenue-funded so no outside VC pushing us to be flashy, but I will definitely admit it makes hiring difficult. Candidates see our stack as boring and bland, which we ma…

There is nothing "cargo cult" about realizing that PHP is just way more difficult to work with and maintain in any large or long-term project than basically any of the more modern "culty" languages (especially the functional ones, which focus on determinism/reliability/transparency, unlike, say, PHP which last I heard has flagging tests in its very own test suite, and does the same "complexity hiding" (read: brushing…

Modern PHP's quite a bit better than the utter mess that was 4.0 or even the half-ugly 5.0. They've deprecated the worst of the misfeatures, especially by default. Now if only they'd adopted the HHVM/Hack Collections instead of the terrible arrays...

Re: You might not need Kubernetes

#317

Post by pR0Ps »

movedx wrote: post #157
combatentropy wrote: post #19

Some day I would like a powwow with all you hackers about whether 99% of apps need more than a $5 droplet from Digital Ocean, set up the old-fashioned way, LAMP --- though feel free to switch out the letters: BSD instead of Linux, Nginx instead of Apache, PostgreSQL instead of MySQL, Ruby or Python instead of PHP. I manage dozens of apps for thousands of users. The apps are all on one server, its load average around…

Spot on, friend. So recently I started writing a simple web application for my family. They send emails to each other with gift wish lists in them and we all have to juggle those emails around. I figured some products would exist already to solve this problem, but I wanted to make my own. When it came time to make it I thought: "This has to be a REST API with a JS front end" and then further down the line, "Man I sho…

I'm interested in something like this - is the code publicly available?

Re: You might not need Kubernetes

#318

Post by movedx »

ngrilly wrote: post #311
movedx wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why the load balancer if the app only serves family and friends, and maintenance windows are okay? It should be able to run on a single server. I use DO to manage the DNS for the domain. I use their LB to manage the TLS cert for the domain. By doing this I don't have to manage TLS connections in my application nor deal with certification creation and rotations. DO are doing it for me for $10/month. That's a bargain…

Right, DigitalOcean load balancer is really handy! I'm curious to know what you think of swarm after you tried it :-)

Hi.

It's very good. I will likely deploy my application to it and eventually, move an open source hosting platform I'm building into it too. It's simple and gets to the point.

Thanks for the recommendation :)

Re: You might not need Kubernetes

#319

Post by ngrilly »

movedx wrote: post #318
ngrilly wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, DigitalOcean load balancer is really handy! I'm curious to know what you think of swarm after you tried it :-)

Hi. It's very good. I will likely deploy my application to it and eventually, move an open source hosting platform I'm building into it too. It's simple and gets to the point. Thanks for the recommendation :)

Hi. Glad you liked it!

I like Docker swarm lightness and simplicity, but I regret there is no official and built-in solution to automatically attach/detach volumes associated to a service (for example backed by Amazon Elastic Block Storage, Google Persistent Disks, or DigitalOcean Block Storage volumes).

I also miss the concept of pod (the ability to colocate multiple containers on the same machine and let them share the same networking stack), and the ability to launch one-off jobs (for example to run database migrations).

On a single-node cluster, these problems don't exist, which paradoxically makes Docker swarm a great solution for single-node clusters :-)

Post reply on HN