Fly Kubernetes

If they are reluctant and only do it because they have to, are they really the right vendor for managed k8s?

What about them makes for a good trade-off when considering the many other vendors?

And fly becomes the standard cloud provider like everyone else. I think this transition is only natural. It's hard to be a big business without catering to the needs of larger companies and that is the operation of many services, not individual apps.

I like the discussion on scheduling. One of the things I've thought recently is that, since there's no one model of how an app or system should work, nor one network architecture, there shouldn't be one scheduler.

Instead, I think the system components should expose themselves as independent entities, and grant other system components the ability to use them under criteria. With this model, any software which can use the system components' interfaces can request resources and use them, in whatever pattern they decide to.

But this requires a universal interface for each kind of component, loosely coupled. Each component then needs to have networking, logging, metrics, credentials, authn+z, configuration. And there needs to be a method by which users can configure all this & start/stop it. Basically it's a distributed OS.

We need to make a standard for distributed OS components using a loosely coupled interface and all the attributes needed. So, not just a standard for logging, auth, creds, etc, but also a standard for networked storage objects that have all those other attributes.

When all that's done, you could make an app on Fly.io, and then from GCP you could attach to your Fly.io app's storage. Or from Fly.io, send logs to Azure Monitor Logs. As long as it's a standard distributed OS component, you just attach to it and use it, and it'll verify you over the standard auth, etc. Not over the "Fly.io integration API for Log Export", but over the "Distributed OS Logging Standard" protocol.

We've got to get away from these one-off REST APIs and get back to real standards. I know corporations hate standards and love to make their own little one-offs, but it's really holding back technological progress.

Am I understanding correctly that because they map a “Pod” to a “Fly Machine”, there’s no intermediate “Node” concept?

If so, this is very attractive. When using GKS, we had to do a lot of work to get our Node utilization (the percent of resources we had reserve on a VM actually occupied by pods) to be higher than 50%.

Curios what happens when you run “kubectl get nodes” - does it lie to you, or call each region one Node?

If their reluctance were based on valid reasons that they handled in a unique way - might be good. In theory.