Earlier quoted context omitted.
The amount of EU companies following this law is exactly 0.
I can attest that there are a lot more than zero in Germany.
Reliability: It’s not great
201–210 of 476 posts
Re: Reliability: It’s not great
#202Re: Reliability: It’s not great
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's strategic messaging. It can't be genuine, because of what it is. The benefit they get is publicity and damage control, and as you can tell by the many responses here, it buys them time because many developers are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Companies that engage in this kind of candor are careful not to disclose those things that would really hurt their business. Those things are still kept se…
Sorry, what? Do you expect that no company can think about what to write before they post it, or that any post about anything internal must cover all internal issues? Posts must be either all roses or a no-thought laundry list of everything bad?
I guess, you and GP are in agreement for the strategic part of the argument at least, if not the genuine part of it.
As someone who's been active on Fly's community forums for close to 18 months now, I think Fly employs some of the most genuine and helpful engs you'll see, so I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.
Re: Reliability: It’s not great
#204Re: Reliability: It’s not great
#205Fundamentally 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'm going to plug Coolify, an open source Heroku alternative (with Docker support too) that I'm using on a cheap $5 Hetzner server which is a lot cheaper than the equivalent Fly or Render etc service, and it really doesn't have much upkeep from me even if you add in the time setting up the server initially, which is like an hour, and afterwards, it Just Works™. https://coolify.io
Re: Reliability: It’s not great
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
The amount of EU companies following this law is exactly 0.
It’s not true. I know people who lost contracts because they were using Azure and the customer wanted to respect the law.
Re: Reliability: It’s not great
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
The difference between (free) Gmail and Google workspace is that workspace is a paid product. If you're big enough to warrant an AM, you can get terms which include continuity of business planning if Google does happen to shut down Workspace. (They won't.)
Is your argument that Workspace is a paid product and therefore won’t be shut down? If yes, let’s keep in mind that Stadia was paid-for too. My trust in the longevity of Google products has been damaged beyond repair.
Re: Reliability: It’s not great
#208Earlier quoted context omitted.
They act as a go-between in that they ultimately host on AWS/GCP. They host their own infrastructure in that they appear to run Kubernetes and have built out their own deployment and service fabric, so they're just using the underlying machines as dumb compute, they're not, eg, building on RDS. In March 2021, someone asked a question about carbon emissions of their data centres. They said they hosted on both GCP and…
(Render founder) We're still on public clouds because even if it doesn't help with margins, it helps us move faster on features our customers want. It's all one big prioritization problem (and lots of little ones too!).
1. They have vastly different ongoing capital and cashflow requirements than you do.
2. They have all the leverage when it comes to the question of your continued operations on their cloud.
I'm also curious if they have already offered to just buy you out since you're clearly succeeding where they seem to just be treading water. (But not expecting you to answer this question. :) )
Re: Reliability: It’s not great
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
> dirt simple managed Postgres Heroku PostgreSQL is very simple, yes. But once you need non-trivial scale it's expensive and extremely non-performant. Even a medium-sized RDS will outperform Heroku's most expensive database offering by 20x in my experience. My company doesn't even run PG on Heroku anymore. We have a VPC/Private Space connection to AWS Aurora because the cost/performance difference is so extreme.
I don't know the details of how Heroku implements their hosted postgres service, but I'm _guessing_ that it's just a bunch of PG servers running on EC2 instances. There's probably a lot of CPU stealing "noisy neighbors" going on. But yeah, I've also experienced Heroku's PG databases being dog-slow compared to RDS for the same workloads.
Re: Reliability: It’s not great
#210Fundamentally 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…
Yeah, distributed systems at the global scale are very very difficult - at least with the Heroku style problem, you'd be looking at scaling in a single datacenter I think - deployments to multiple datacenters wouldn't share dependencies. I do wonder however if they'd be better off using less l33t tech - do almost everything on Postgres vs consul and vault, etc. Scaling, failover, consistency, etc is a more well-known…
In my experience people who ran Postgres distributed across a WAN tended to use obscure third-party plugins at best, more often a pile of dodgy Perl scripts. Using something designed from the ground up to be clustered seems to have a much better chance of working out than trying to make something that's been built as a single-instance system for decades work across the internet.