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

Reliability: It’s not great

community.fly.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 476 posts

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#51

Post by sa46 »

jpdb wrote: post #28
emschwartz wrote: post #2

One of my colleagues keeps repeating “reliability is our number one feature”. I’m not sure it is for 100% of early stage startups, but I guess it is once you exceed some minimum usage threshold. That said, definitely appreciate the detailed explanation.

> One of my colleagues keeps repeating “reliability is our number one feature”. I think reliability is the #1 feature at any stage because if you're unavailable, you're at best useless and more than likely you are actively harmful because your users have an expectation. However, if you're unavailable outside of times customers don't expect you to be there then you're not actually unavailable. This is more likely for…

In terms of confidentiality, availability, and integrity: I'll bet LastPass would gladly trade availability right now to regain confidentiality.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#52

Post by ec109685 »

samwillis wrote: post #18

Fundamentally I think some of the problems come down to the difference between what Fly set out to build and what the market currently want. Fly (to my understanding) at its core is about edge compute. That is where they started and what the team are most excited about developing. It's a brilliant idea, they have the skills and expertise. They are going to be successful at it. However, at the same time the market is…

The CloudFlare folks wrote a good blog post on how they are seeing their customers use Edge compute — latency is far down on the list: https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-workers-serverless-we...

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#53

Post by monsieurbanana »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #38
latchkey wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What I truly want and probably lots of other people too is Flyctl for AWS. The same simplicity to run as fly, but give me something cheap in Virginia or the Dalles. Google Cloud. It is painfully easy to spin up managed postgres, super easy to deploy gcp cloud functions or gcp cloud run. It isn't expensive either and just works.

If someone is not already using the holy trinity (AWS/Azure/GCP) there is probably a reason.

I'm not using gcp anymore because it's not worth risk losing access to my personal gmail account just to play around with pet projects.

I might be paranoid, but I just don't feel comfortable when there's so much in play.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#54

Post by pid-1 »

gen220 wrote: post #46
vineyardmike wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree - fly is so easy to use (when it works) that it’s hard not to be impressed. BUT what I’ve found is that we don’t need edge compute, since our customers aren’t that latency sensitive, so it’s lost on us. It’s only a few more milliseconds to us-east-1. I’ve heard (on HN) of a dozen different companies vying for the heroku replacement spots and yet Fly seemed to capture the attention. I couldn’t name another one…

> What I truly want and probably lots of other people too is Flyctl for AWS. The same simplicity to run as fly, but give me something cheap in Virginia or the Dallas. Pardon the ignorance, is this not the Amplify CLI [1] ? [1]: https://docs.amplify.aws/cli/

No

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#55

Post by cschep »

emschwartz wrote: post #2

One of my colleagues keeps repeating “reliability is our number one feature”. I’m not sure it is for 100% of early stage startups, but I guess it is once you exceed some minimum usage threshold. That said, definitely appreciate the detailed explanation.

TL;DR -- It's very domain specific if reliability is your number one feature.

For a startup that is hosting other people's production application/data then this is absolutely true. Less than 100% always needs to be addressed.

For a startup that is selling bingo cards then reliability probably isn't nearly as important. I'm guessing there were certain holidays that were more important than others as far as reliability goes though? Maybe patio11 can chime in :)

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#56

Post by ec109685 »

I wonder what types of RPS they are seeing that required a gossip based protocol to broadcast state around versus a more traditional data store.

I take it that it’s far more important that the local region know about changes than a remote region, which makes a mastered store in one location as the source of truth problematic.

I also wonder why these companies don’t backstop themselves on the public cloud? Failing into an AWS seems better than running out of capacity and some its services could be used in circumstances where an open source technology isn’t ready.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#57

Post by vorticalbox »

cldellow wrote: post #33
vineyardmike wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree - fly is so easy to use (when it works) that it’s hard not to be impressed. BUT what I’ve found is that we don’t need edge compute, since our customers aren’t that latency sensitive, so it’s lost on us. It’s only a few more milliseconds to us-east-1. I’ve heard (on HN) of a dozen different companies vying for the heroku replacement spots and yet Fly seemed to capture the attention. I couldn’t name another one…

Render.com is another spiritual successor of Heroku. I'd love a world where Fly and Render are both very successful companies.

Render has some great features like making a new sub domain for when a PR is opened so you can test it as a fully working API before you merge

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#58

Post by e1g »

This reads like a mea culpa from an indie hacker, but Fly.io had 5+ years and raised $40M to get these basic fundamentals right. And we get promises of a new status page.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#59

Post by trunnell »

vineyardmike wrote: post #26
samwillis wrote: post #18

Fundamentally I think some of the problems come down to the difference between what Fly set out to build and what the market currently want. Fly (to my understanding) at its core is about edge compute. That is where they started and what the team are most excited about developing. It's a brilliant idea, they have the skills and expertise. They are going to be successful at it. However, at the same time the market is…

I agree - fly is so easy to use (when it works) that it’s hard not to be impressed. BUT what I’ve found is that we don’t need edge compute, since our customers aren’t that latency sensitive, so it’s lost on us. It’s only a few more milliseconds to us-east-1. I’ve heard (on HN) of a dozen different companies vying for the heroku replacement spots and yet Fly seemed to capture the attention. I couldn’t name another one…

  > Flyctl for AWS
Have you tried AWS Copilot? I’m having good success with it. Probably not quite as simple as flyctl, but still it’s only one command to deploy a container.

I would really like fly.io to overcome these hurdles. I bet they will.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#60

Post by everybodyknows »

ec109685 wrote: post #52
samwillis wrote: post #18

Fundamentally I think some of the problems come down to the difference between what Fly set out to build and what the market currently want. Fly (to my understanding) at its core is about edge compute. That is where they started and what the team are most excited about developing. It's a brilliant idea, they have the skills and expertise. They are going to be successful at it. However, at the same time the market is…

The CloudFlare folks wrote a good blog post on how they are seeing their customers use Edge compute — latency is far down on the list: https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-workers-serverless-we...

Hmm, that post is almost three years old -- still accurate?
Post reply on HN