4 ms·

I don't think I would be so quick to dismiss this sentiment. I run a profitable SaaS business, and every opportunity to give up responsibility results in highly

by akanet 9y ago

I don't think I would be so quick to dismiss this sentiment. I run a profitable SaaS business, and every opportunity to give up responsibility results in highly profitable refocusing of effort on the things we do that actually matter. I'd much rather have a team of Google engineers running our LBs than myself.

stephenr 9y ago
This entire thread is about the hoops people are having to jump through to get pretty basic functionality from a load balancer, specifically because they took your approach. I didn't say it can't work for anyone, I said its depressing how it's the default/only approach for so many people who call themselves "hackers".
- akanet 9y ago
  I think it's tempting to assume that sentiment expressed here is reflective of the majority - everyone whose use case is served well is happy and likely doesn't comment. As for the "hackers" comment - HN might have "Hacker" in the name, but it's about a lot of things, and a big focus is on making money. Farming out boring stuff to "the cloud" has been fantastic for making money for pretty much everyone.
- manigandham 9y ago
  Where are you reading that? All of the GCP load balancers are the best available. There are no hoops to jump through. SNI based TLS is an additional feature that some would like, which is available now by just adding a CDN in front and should solve that need for most. I'm sure anyone here can spin up a haproxy instance, that's not a big deal nor impressive in any way and there are better things to spend time on for most people and companies. Do you write web apps in assembly code or something because you're a "hacker"?
  - stephenr 9y ago
    > that's not a big deal So surely it wouldn't take that long then? > there are better things to spend time on Like putting CDN's in front of your load balancers I guess? A TLS terminating proxy that doesn't support SNI in 2017 is like a browser that doesn't support SNI in 2017.
    - manigandham 9y ago
      You're just being flippant at this point but here goes: You will never achieve the same reliability, scalability, performance, and security, at the same cost, by doing it yourself. And it's fine to layer 2 services together to get all the functionality needed. That's completely normal - like how you can use multiple APIs to build an app - unless you have a specific scenario, like security regulations, to avoid a managed solution. Maybe building all that means you're a "hacker" but most users are acting on behalf of businesses and there are far better things to spend time on than creating a worse solution to a solved problem.

by akanet 9y ago

stephenr 9y ago

This entire thread is about the hoops people are having to jump through to get pretty basic functionality from a load balancer, specifically because they took your approach. I didn't say it can't work for anyone, I said its depressing how it's the default/only approach for so many people who call themselves "hackers".

akanet 9y ago
I think it's tempting to assume that sentiment expressed here is reflective of the majority - everyone whose use case is served well is happy and likely doesn't comment. As for the "hackers" comment - HN might have "Hacker" in the name, but it's about a lot of things, and a big focus is on making money. Farming out boring stuff to "the cloud" has been fantastic for making money for pretty much everyone.
manigandham 9y ago
Where are you reading that? All of the GCP load balancers are the best available. There are no hoops to jump through. SNI based TLS is an additional feature that some would like, which is available now by just adding a CDN in front and should solve that need for most. I'm sure anyone here can spin up a haproxy instance, that's not a big deal nor impressive in any way and there are better things to spend time on for most people and companies. Do you write web apps in assembly code or something because you're a "hacker"?
- stephenr 9y ago
  > that's not a big deal So surely it wouldn't take that long then? > there are better things to spend time on Like putting CDN's in front of your load balancers I guess? A TLS terminating proxy that doesn't support SNI in 2017 is like a browser that doesn't support SNI in 2017.
  - manigandham 9y ago
    You're just being flippant at this point but here goes: You will never achieve the same reliability, scalability, performance, and security, at the same cost, by doing it yourself. And it's fine to layer 2 services together to get all the functionality needed. That's completely normal - like how you can use multiple APIs to build an app - unless you have a specific scenario, like security regulations, to avoid a managed solution. Maybe building all that means you're a "hacker" but most users are acting on behalf of businesses and there are far better things to spend time on than creating a worse solution to a solved problem.