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

441–450 of 476 posts

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#441

Post by alex_sf »

Timon3 wrote: post #402
alex_sf wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They place a burden on everyone. A burden that's going to create a two-tier internet where service is immediately refused to EU citizens by every provider except the giant tech companies that can afford to comply.

Why exactly is it seemingly so expensive not to sell your customer data?

That's not the issue. I don't want to see personal data sold either. It's all the little rules. There are hundreds of pages just in GDPR. You need a banner and explicit opt-in just to support login/logout functionality.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#442

Post by pwelch »

Growing pains are never fun. It doesn't mention (at least that I read) if they're using HashiCorp Open Source or Enterprise. Open Source is great and I owe my career to it but they might be hitting the scale when the Enterprise features and support start to be worth the price.

I've only used Fly.io for a personal app but I think it's a great option so I hope they keep growing.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#444

Post by latchkey »

namaria wrote: post #146
guhcampos wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Create a new Gmail account?

Separating concerns, isolating things that are not related, these are some basic tenets of good engineering. Yet we all keep rolling the ball of mud downhill and act shocked it keeps growing and swallowing everything.

That's the beauty of the services I named. Super easy to roll the code to any other similar PaaS provider. There is no vendor lockin.

It is postgres + http handlers.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#445

Post by latchkey »

amluto wrote: post #171
0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Egress pricing, for one. fly.io charges an outrageous 2 cents/GB. Google is over 4x that. At fly.io rates, 1Gbps average over a month is $6400/mo. Google is tiered and you’re looking at over $10k/mo. For comparison, a cheap managed switch that can handle 1Gbps costs about $100, maybe a bit more if you want a nice one. A nice router is more. You can rent an entire rack , including power, cooling, and an unmetered 1Gbp…

Depending on what I'm building, I tend to cache on the edge with something like CloudFlare in front of GCP. Lowers the egress charges significantly, with the benefit of speeding everything up too.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#446

Post by notpushkin »

Aeolun wrote: post #284
notpushkin wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dokku is also nice and battle-tested: https://dokku.com/ And may I also plug Lunni, a self-hosted Docker Swarm-based PaaS I'm working on right now: https://lunni.dev/ Both work pretty well on $5 servers.

Personally I use portainer for basically the same thing. My only real requirement was that I could easily copy-paste in docker-compose files and have it just work. I use caddy as the proxy, since I found the traefik configuration absolutely incomprehensible. Now I use only 2 labels to proxy instead of 15.

Caddy is nice, I've been playing around with it too and I love it. Perhaps we can port Lunni to use it, too.

Portainer is also cool – we're using it internally as an API, actually! I've been using it before starting Lunni and my only objection is the UI. Portainer is kinda like a Swiss army knife for containers, but with this power comes the complexity, too.

For example, to see service logs, you have to pick an environment, then go to Stacks, find your stack, find the service you need, open it and then you'll see the service logs button. In Lunni, you open your stack right from the dashboard and click logs button right beside your service name: https://u.ale.sh/lunni-screenshot-logs-button.png

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#447

Post by pwelch »

pwelch wrote: post #442

Growing pains are never fun. It doesn't mention (at least that I read) if they're using HashiCorp Open Source or Enterprise. Open Source is great and I owe my career to it but they might be hitting the scale when the Enterprise features and support start to be worth the price. I've only used Fly.io for a personal app but I think it's a great option so I hope they keep growing.

Ah my question was answered more or less. They're an edge case which makes sense: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35048318

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#448

Post by bfdes »

vorticalbox wrote: post #57
cldellow wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I believe Netlify introduced this feature. It is now ubiquitous (as alexgrover said).

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#449

Post by unxdfa »

jen20 wrote: post #422
unxdfa wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can make sensible assumptions that result in engineering gains though. Step around the problems not through them. For example I have learned that the first step to reliability is removing as many hashicorp products from your stack as possible though. Appears I am not the only one.

If you’ve been using them in ways clearly explicitly called out as not per the design goals, then sure, removing any piece of technology will help you. I’m guessing that is not your actual problem though.

I would not assume that Hashicorp products necessarily meet the design goals if I'm honest. Consul and vagrant have been absolute shits and vault adds more complexity and unreliability to the problem domain and has a net negative ROI. I like the idea of their products but the reality is very different.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#450

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

latchkey wrote: post #443
miyuru wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17115643

Did you read the comments? My takeaway is that it was bs.

There was one person strongly challenging the story and plenty of back and forth. It hardly seems a settled case one way or the other.
Post reply on HN