7 ms·
The article mentioned kubernetes multiple times and I think it's providers like Heroku that actually stand the most to gain there. With kubernetes in theory th
by daxfohl 10y ago
The article mentioned kubernetes multiple times and I think it's providers like Heroku that actually stand the most to gain there. With kubernetes in theory they should no longer have to make you choose between providers, and be able to run on spot instances of whatever provider is cheapest at the time. You just choose your max latency at certain geo areas and a budget to balance by, some AI to help you determine the tradeoffs, and it does the rest. If Heroku isn't working toward that then there has to be someone doing so soon. If not it seems like there's a pretty big opportunity there.
- jacques_chester 10y agoCloud Foundry is closest to this vision, in my entirely biased opinion. We're already able to mount standalone installations on AWS, GCP, Azure, OpenStack, vSphere and others. Distributing apps across multiple clouds is easy to say, hard to do. Each IaaS has peculiarities and wrinkles, different tradeoffs in performance and cost and so on. It takes a moderately tricky scheduling problem and turns it into a much gnarlier one. What's easier is using high-level tools like Terraform and BOSH to manage installations on different IaaSes, and pushing apps to whichever one you like as you like. I can easily imagine setting up round-robin deploys. That said: data has inertia. Any sensible architecture has to bear that in mind; typically apps will wind up living close to their datastores. Disclosure: I work for Pivotal, we're the majority donor of engineering to Cloud Foundry.