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

341–350 of 476 posts

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#341

Post by chillfox »

sirsinsalot wrote: post #186
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…

Digital Ocean gave me the PaaS replacement and managed PG and I couldn't be happier. If anyone else is looking.

I tried running a docker app on Digital Ocean's app platform, the UI is nice and I can see it being acceptable for your average CRUD app. But I had to abandon it due to the latency just being too high and their built in monitoring interval not being configurable to the ~5-20ms range (this was for competitive Battlesnake last year).

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#343

Post by otterley »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #250
otterley wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, why did you do that? If you’d asked them whether this was a supported configuration or intended purpose, they’d have said no; and anyone who had experience deploying Consul at large scale would have told you the same. There is truly no compression algorithm for experience.

I don't think he personally designed the first implementation. But in any case, understanding of complex topics comes in waves. Many times I've had to read all the docs then use a system for several months before the epiphany hits me.

I also think there’s this tendency in the industry to want to solve problems on your own without the help from outsiders, even if they know the problem space better than you do, and even if they’d gladly help (often for free) if asked. It’s especially worrisome when it’s powering a key workload that is essential to the functioning of your business. Sometimes it’s because you might not know whom to consult or recruit, but in this case, the vendor was known.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#344

Post by FrenchTouch42 »

sayrer wrote: post #293
mrkurt wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It sounds like you built the right product on the wrong technology stack, at the lower levels. For example, I have never heard a Nomad success story, but this might be colored by interviewing engineers desperate to escape it. Something like linkerd on Kubernetes would be stronger, I suspect. But I don't know the exact nature of your problems.

> I have never heard a Nomad success story

There's a lot of Nomad at , just won't get any publicity but that's different.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#345

Post by snapetom »

eyelidlessness wrote: post #301
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…

When I was in an engineering IC version of this role, I longed for someone like you to have my back in management and have customers’ backs too. If I had a time machine and a magic lamp I’d team up with you. As a future representation of past me, I can tell you: 1. Everything it’s making you feel is valid. 1b. If you’re feeling burnt out, please listen to it. It gets worse if you let it. 2. While I can’t hire you now…

Man, you don't know how this impacted me.

My boss is supportive, but he's also under heavy fire. Like I mentioned, my peers are rightfully skeptical. My team are a bunch of sharp, good guys, but haven't had any good guidance of mentorship in years, if not decades. They're all different, but what the have in common is that they've been screwed and judged unfairly thanks to past incompetence. That just pisses me off.

There's hope from those around me, but it's a pretty darn lonely job. You just gave me the fuel to not feel already beat up when I walk in the door tomorrow.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#346

Post by wferrell »

tptacek wrote: post #292
pcthrowaway wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any plans to make Corrosion open source? Or are you able to talk at all about the technologies/patterns used to create it? I feel like service discovery is still ripe for disruption

Yeah, we'll for sure talk about it more some other time. Mostly today we want to talk about how we were sucking ass at customer comms.

Can you please write a blog post or book with "Sucking ass at customer comms" as the title ;)

I say this as someone that loves fly :)

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#347

Post by e12e »

cavisne wrote: post #299
fcantournet wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those would not contain PII from your users though, unless you have terrible policies about copying personal information in random Google Docs.

Companies have to guess what is PII and what is not, the EU have no idea (other than they know which companies they want to punish)

The GDPR is quite clear on defining PII, I don't understand why you would claim otherwise?

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#348

Post by mmcclure »

nikita wrote: post #107
mmcclure wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That comment jumped out to me too, my recollection was that they've been pretty vocal about that not being something they wanted to solve themselves as a core competency. I'm not quite parsing if these two blurbs should still be taken together or if the second sentence is refuting the first. > The second problem we have with Postgres was a poor choice on my part. We decided to ship “unmanaged Postgres” to buy ourselv…

(Neon CEO) We are launching our paid tier March 15th and will be production ready shortly after. We are running 20K+ databases and measuring reliability and uptime. Generally reliability is a function of architecture (we are solid there), good SRE practices, and a long tail of event you live through, fix, and make sure they never happen again. The bigger the fleet the faster the learning.

That's great, love to hear it! Really excited about what you all are working on.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#349

Post by strken »

ricardobeat wrote: post #302
alex_sf wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not exactly related to the OP, but: I think I speak for a large number of folks when I say that we don't care. The EU keeps passing all sorts of absurd laws that require dedicated auditors to comply with. It's just not going to happen. If they decide to actively enforce these things, they'll just isolate themselves from the rest of the world.

As an EEUU resident, we also don't care. We can survive without youtube and instagram and the whole surveillance industry. Some of the laws place a heavy burden on giant tech companies, but for good reason.

That's a nice theory, but it may not survive the next few decades of regulatory capture by the same type of company you believe it's intended to act against.
Post reply on HN