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

271–280 of 476 posts

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#271

Post by say_it_as_it_is »

mrkurt wrote: post #159
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…

This is, indeed, the exciting part. As Heroku fans, we never really felt like it needed a replacement. And if it did, it seemed like Render was the natural Heroku v.next. One thing we've noticed, though, is that people do actually want Heroku but close to users. It's not exactly edge compute. In some cases, it's "Heroku in Tokyo". In others it's "Heroku, but running in all the english speaking regions". I think the t…

Can you please explain what the Vault related failure is about? Is this about timing out services failing to start within an acceptable time range?

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#272

Post by quickthrower2 »

chillfox wrote: post #265
quickthrower2 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a nutshell if you offer cloud services you need to be better than the MAG clan, Digital Ocean too. And people will want it dirt cheap. It’s still hard to be a profitable web host as it always was (MAG has the advantage that none of them were web hosts at first base)

I am willing to pay a little extra for a nice dev/ops experience and simple/easy solutions that doesn't require spending days reading docs and diving into dashboards with thousands of options. Usually this results in me jumping on new platforms and then abandoning them once they add too much complexity.

I suspect, in general, acceptability (or desire) for complexity in the cloud solution, and budget are positively correlated in customers.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#273

Post by quickthrower2 »

leishman wrote: post #86
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…

This is spot on. I found myself using Fly for a project because it was super easy, not because I needed edge compute. TBH it's still actually unclear to me who needs edge compute? What apps require this sort of infra? It's not 99% of web apps right?

It is going to be apps that provide rich experiences that need to do a lot of server communication to deliver them. I am thinking of things like collaborative whiteboards, for example. If 2 people are in Europe, working on the same whiteboard, then it should be low latency. The edge nodes will be near each other (or next to each other).

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#274

Post by Aeolun »

slt2021 wrote: post #258
quickthrower2 wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a nutshell if you offer cloud services you need to be better than the MAG clan, Digital Ocean too. And people will want it dirt cheap. It’s still hard to be a profitable web host as it always was (MAG has the advantage that none of them were web hosts at first base)

if you add Akamai (Linode ) or Alibaba Cloud - then it will be come MAAG

MAGA?

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#275

Post by Aeolun »

anurag wrote: post #136
te_chris wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not gonna happen. Both will get acquired because that’s how things work now

(Render founder) I'd love to understand why you think this is the only outcome. Render has positive gross margin and a clear path to profitability based on both our growth so far and the tailwinds in this space. I'm also aware of other companies like ours that have grown all the way to IPO or are well on their way. I'm very explicit both internally and externally that an acquisition is a failure mode for Render. We'r…

> I'd love to understand why you think this is the only outcome.

I’m curious why you think it isn’t? On a long enough timescale all good things seem to be acquired by large megacorps for a fuckton of money.

Slack, Linode, Minecraft, the list goes on. Eventually they all make the thing less than it was before under the founders’ vision. At least from my perspective.

It won’t stop me from cheering them on, but I’m still very skeptical of them not being bought out in 10 years.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#276

Post by nikita »

pier25 wrote: post #264
KRAKRISMOTT wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just partner with Neon or other similar companies in this space. Scale-to-zero distributed databases is well understood technology. https://neon.tech/

Does Neon support triggers and subscriptions?

yes to triggers - it's full postgres. logical replication is not exposed just yet, but soon

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#277

Post by jrochkind1 »

karmelapple wrote: post #158
VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #84

Earlier 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 have run the experiment, and Crunchy Data’s Postgres servers are 4X more bang for the buck than Heroku’s. I let some folks at Heroku know this who are product managers, and they are investigating it… but I would be shocked if Heroku gets a big performance improvement anytime in, say, 2023. 20X seems like a lot for RDS, though I’d be curious to learn more! We are switching to Crunchy because of that clear cost/perfo…

I would be kind of shocked if heroku gets a big performance improvement ever again. It seems the owners have decided to basically freeze it.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#280

Post by chrisshroba »

bostik wrote: post #79
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…

There's a wonderfully blunt saying that applies here (too): you are not in the business you think you are, you are in the business your customers think you are. If you offer data volumes, the low water mark is how EBS behaves. If you offer a really simple way to spin up Postgres databases, you are implicitly promising a fully managed experience. And $deity forbid, if you want global CRUD with read-your-own-writes sem…

> if you want global CRUD with read-your-own-writes semantics, the yardstick people measure you against is Google's Spanner.

I’m trying to build more of an intuition around distributed systems. I’ve read DDIA and worked professionally on some very large systems, but I’m wondering what resources are good for getting more on the pulse of what the latest best practices and cutting edge technologies are. Your comment sounds like you have that context so any advice for folks like me?

Post reply on HN