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

61–70 of 476 posts

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#61

Post by pier25 »

I've been using Fly for over two years or so. The sentiment of this post doesn't align with my personal (anecdotal) experience.

The PG issues hit me two times in the previous weeks but other than that it's been working great for me.

With the move to v2 apps (using their new machines infra) things are actually faster and smoother than ever.

About a year or so ago their CLI was quite buggy but I haven't really hit any bugs in months.

I will remain with Fly for the time being. Hopefully they don't close shop!

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#62

Post by fmajid »

ec109685 wrote: post #52
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…

The CloudFlare folks wrote a good blog post on how they are seeing their customers use Edge compute — latency is far down on the list: https://blog.cloudflare.com/cloudflare-workers-serverless-we...

The US CLOUD Act means a EU customer cannot use a US cloud provider to host PII, even if the server itself is physically in the EU, because US law will still compel the provider to yield the data to US authorities. The European Commission is trying to paper over the cracks with a fig leaf of judicial review, but it's only a matter of time until a Schrems III decision from the CJEU invalidates that polite fiction.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#63

Post by vendiddy »

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…

I can second this. We were evaluating moving off Heroku and to Fly.io, but we didn't need all of the edge compute stuff. We just want a better Heroku without having to think about infrastructure and having to think about edge compute just got in our way.

I feel like Next.js is in a similar position. While their main vision is SSR, I wonder if they are missing out on a chunk of the market that simply doesn't want to think about infra. We use them because we just don't have to worry about webpack or fiddling with deployment and hosting. We could care less about SSR and in fact we disabled it app-wide.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#64

Post by scubbo »

pid-1 wrote: post #54
gen220 wrote: post #46

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 Dallas. Pardon the ignorance, is this not the Amplify CLI [1] ? [1]: https://docs.amplify.aws/cli/

No

Can you elaborate?

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#65

Post by guhcampos »

monsieurbanana wrote: post #53
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.

I'm not using gcp anymore because it's not worth risk losing access to my personal gmail account just to play around with pet projects. I might be paranoid, but I just don't feel comfortable when there's so much in play.

Create a new Gmail account?

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#66

Post by jamil7 »

te_chris wrote: post #48
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.

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

Not sure why this is downvoted, it’s a valid point.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#67

Post by jstummbillig »

te_chris wrote: post #48
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.

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

Unless a company is very explicit about this not being in the books, I tend to share this outlook.

From the perspective of a recent founder, it's downright spooky to build around any SaaS, considering how few of them have been around for 10+ years, when that is certainly what our business is aiming for.

I know (and share the feels): Devs tend to get excited about the new thing – but if Google Workspace shut down next month, we would be in so much operational trouble. When other peoples fancies stand in the way of the entire operation you are responsible for, it actually begs the question how much closed source SaaS you can allow before it starts to be quite frankly irresponsible.

We are not imagining things. SaaS of all sizes shut down all the time, and when you are heavily relying on them and building software around them to run a business the prospect is spooky as hell.

Re: Reliability: It’s not great

#68

Post by ilaksh »

ign0ramus wrote: post #41
ilaksh wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's necessary to change for them to run on Firecracker?

Here's a post explaining how they do it https://fly.io/blog/docker-without-docker/

Yeah, saw that before. I thought he was saying you have to change your Dockerfiles to use them with fly.io. Just misinterpreted that sentence.
Post reply on HN