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

311–320 of 476 posts

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#311

Post by tptacek »

dastbe wrote: post #267
tptacek wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you've ever implemented IS-IS or OSPF before, like 80% of the work is "LSP flooding", which is just the process that gets updates about available links from one end of the network to another as fast as possible without drowning the links themselves in update messages. Flooding algorithms don't build consensus, unlike Raft quorums, which intrinsically have a centralized set of authorities that keep a single source…

this doesn't paint a full picture of your options, as there's nothing that stops you from having zonal/regional consensus and then replication across regions/long-range topologies for global distribution. to be pithy about it, going full-bore gossip protocol is like going full-bore blockchain: solves a problem, introduces a lot of much more painful problems, and would've been solved much more neatly with a little bit…

I don't disagree that there are opportunities to introduce topology. I do disagree that there are opportunities to benefit from distributed consensus. If a server in ORD is down, it doesn't matter what some server in SJC says it's hosting; all the ORD instances of all the apps on that server are down. If that same ORD server is up, it doesn't matter what any server says it's running; it's authoritative for what it's running.

Of course, OSPF has topology and aggregation, too.

At any rate: I didn't design the system we're talking about.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#312

Post by pier25 »

nikita wrote: post #282
nikita wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Subscriptions should still work with scale to 0. NOTIFY/LISTEN doesn't: https://neon.tech/docs/reference/compatibility . We will have an option to not scale all the way to 0 to support this scenario.

Awesome!

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#313

Post by selcuka »

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

Linode is not the same scale as the top 3. I believe even Digital Ocean is bigger than them (for now).

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#314

Post by snapetom »

claytonjy wrote: post #172
snapetom wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is probably therapy, but your message and fly.io's post resonates a lot with what I'm going through. I took a product owner role about 6 months ago, my first, with a company that has turned out to be just a mired mess, and a product universally hated both internally and externally. Long story short, it's completely over-engineered by a bunch of intellectual engineers with no focus, no discipline, and no oversigh…

Your job sure does sound depressing, and it's not one I would succeed at, but if you can power through and turn this product around that's a hell of an accomplishment you'll have to be proud of. I'm curious what you'd like to do next. You could probably have a great career doing these sorts of turnarounds repeatedly across companies, maybe even as a consultant, but would you want to?

> that's a hell of an accomplishment you'll have to be proud of.

It's hinted by the C-level that if I can pull this off, it would be nothing short of a miracle. I'm pretty sure I can negotiate salary, education, bonus, and what not if I can pull this off.

As far as next, I've thought about that. It would be funny to call myself a turnaround specialist. This would be quite a remarkable feat, but I really don't know if I would have taken this job if I knew what a mess this was...

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#315

Post by zamnos »

azurelake wrote: post #169
zamnos wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where does the misalignment between what the customer thinks they want, and what they actually want fit in to your philosophy? Google Spanner is a great example of this because who doesn't want instantaneous global writes? It's just that, y'know, there's a ton of businesses, especially smaller ones, that don't actually need that. The smarter customers realize this themselves, and can judge the premium they'd pay for…

> who doesn't want instantaneous global writes I want to gently note since I see a lot of misunderstanding around Spanner and global writes: Global writes need at least one round trip to each data center, and so they're still subject to the speed of light.

[flagged]

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#316

Post by snapetom »

mrkurt wrote: post #147
snapetom wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is probably therapy, but your message and fly.io's post resonates a lot with what I'm going through. I took a product owner role about 6 months ago, my first, with a company that has turned out to be just a mired mess, and a product universally hated both internally and externally. Long story short, it's completely over-engineered by a bunch of intellectual engineers with no focus, no discipline, and no oversigh…

I feel this. I hope you get over the hump and your job gets fun. We've had flashes, at least, but I do think what we're doing (and probably what you're doing) require some irrational behavior.

I have a POC I'm trying to get out in a couple of weeks. It's for the #1 feature that was promised in this product, never possible due to the architecture, and we've gotten raked over the coals for it. Wish me luck, because if I can get it out soon, it's going to be downhill for a while.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#317

Post by anacrolix » 

    - Machines seem like a waste of time
    - Access directly to VMs is being removed (and doesn't support TCP over IPv4, or UDP over IPv6)
    - The CDN is nice but should support private networking too.
    - Volume management is deficient: It should be possible to access and fix volumes outside the context of an its app instance.
    - Egress traffic should be free between apps over private networking, at least in the same DC.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#319

Post by latchkey »

vineyardmike wrote: post #140
guhcampos wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Create a new Gmail account?

Google associates different accounts that are from the same owner when handling issues FYI. So if they think your account is doing something wrong on GCP, be wary of associated accounts.

Never once heard of that.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#320

Post by latchkey »

mattbillenstein wrote: post #39
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.

Do you have a guide in mind? If it's sorting and sifting and clicking a bunch of stuff in the console, that's not painfully simple. If it's some easy cli commands, I think that's in the ballpark...

There is a gcloud cli, but I just automated deployments in CI...

https://github.com/google-github-actions/deploy-cloud-functi...

Post reply on HN