5 ms·

Doesn't seem like it based on > Instead of pushing the new build to our servers using a sync script, each server pulls the build concurrently when signaled by

Doesn't seem like it based on > Instead of pushing the new build to our servers using a sync script, each server pulls the build concurrently when signaled by a Consul key change.

MuffinFlavored 7y ago
does that mean they are not even using containers?
- Saaster 7y ago
  Plain EC2, backend in PHP.
  - echelon 7y ago
    > Plain EC2, backend in PHP. That's slightly horrific. Weirdware NIH deploy system, no containers, PHP.
    - icedchai 7y ago
      If I was using PHP, I wouldn't use containers either. Just sync the latest code over, change a sym link to the new build, done.
      - 1f97 7y ago
        capistrano is perfect for that. we use it for all our deployment needs and it has been wonderful!
        mcpeepants 7y ago
        second this. I haven't needed cap in a while for the work I'm doing, and I don't often see it mentioned (perhaps because I'm not looking) but it's a fantastic tool for managing atomic deployment.
      - conradfr 7y ago
        That seems a little bit simplistic for today's workflow as there's chances you'll need to to restart php-fpm anyway, discard/refresh some cache (Doctrine metadada ...), maybe update your composer / vendor directory and its autoloading files, maybe run db migrations and more.
    - windowsworkstoo 7y ago
      Why so? They just haven't jumped on the meme-tech train, at least wrt to this setup. Running an actual process on an actual server has been around since time immemorial, as has doing the "atomic" deploy thing (which I'm guessing is just updating a symlink from cold to hot). The approach is refreshingly sane.
    - leftnode 7y ago
      And yet...it just works. And scales!
    - aprdm 7y ago
      Lol. You would be surprised at how 99.9% of the companies work. Including a lot of departments inside Google, Amazon and Netflix. Maybe you were being sarcastic and I felt for it since you stressed it a bit too much.
    - Saaster 7y ago
      Look at almost all successful companies and they're pretty "boring" under the hood: GitHub and Stripe are Ruby on Rails, Facebook is PHP, Google is Java (still almost all new code written in 2020)... it gets the job done. Yes, they do some optimizations (HHVM etc.), but nobody is considering rewriting FB, Stripe or Google services in the language du jour. The complexity of the infra and deployments are always relative to the size of the company, and no two companies are alike there. Small or big, it's all bespoke. Even if a few pieces are shared as open source projects, there's a veritable iceberg of complexity in the form of inhouse knowledge and tooling in each of the companies, there is nothing even close to a standard deployment system in either green field startups or FAANGs today.
    - meritt 7y ago
      > That's slightly horrific. I'd argue that the contemporary infatuation with mastery of complex toolchains as being the only possible solution to modern technical problems is far more horrific. Smart businesses focus on simple, effective solutions and avoid hiring engineers who obsess with rewriting everything using the latest over-hyped technology.
    - spoopyskelly 7y ago
      The only horrific thing is that you think that.

Doesn't seem like it based on > Instead of pushing the new build to our servers using a sync script, each server pulls the build concurrently when signaled by a Consul key change.

MuffinFlavored 7y ago

does that mean they are not even using containers?

Saaster 7y ago
Plain EC2, backend in PHP.
- echelon 7y ago
  > Plain EC2, backend in PHP. That's slightly horrific. Weirdware NIH deploy system, no containers, PHP.
  - icedchai 7y ago
    If I was using PHP, I wouldn't use containers either. Just sync the latest code over, change a sym link to the new build, done.
    - 1f97 7y ago
      capistrano is perfect for that. we use it for all our deployment needs and it has been wonderful!
      - mcpeepants 7y ago
        second this. I haven't needed cap in a while for the work I'm doing, and I don't often see it mentioned (perhaps because I'm not looking) but it's a fantastic tool for managing atomic deployment.
    - conradfr 7y ago
      That seems a little bit simplistic for today's workflow as there's chances you'll need to to restart php-fpm anyway, discard/refresh some cache (Doctrine metadada ...), maybe update your composer / vendor directory and its autoloading files, maybe run db migrations and more.
  - windowsworkstoo 7y ago
    Why so? They just haven't jumped on the meme-tech train, at least wrt to this setup. Running an actual process on an actual server has been around since time immemorial, as has doing the "atomic" deploy thing (which I'm guessing is just updating a symlink from cold to hot). The approach is refreshingly sane.
  - leftnode 7y ago
    And yet...it just works. And scales!
  - aprdm 7y ago
    Lol. You would be surprised at how 99.9% of the companies work. Including a lot of departments inside Google, Amazon and Netflix. Maybe you were being sarcastic and I felt for it since you stressed it a bit too much.
  - Saaster 7y ago
    Look at almost all successful companies and they're pretty "boring" under the hood: GitHub and Stripe are Ruby on Rails, Facebook is PHP, Google is Java (still almost all new code written in 2020)... it gets the job done. Yes, they do some optimizations (HHVM etc.), but nobody is considering rewriting FB, Stripe or Google services in the language du jour. The complexity of the infra and deployments are always relative to the size of the company, and no two companies are alike there. Small or big, it's all bespoke. Even if a few pieces are shared as open source projects, there's a veritable iceberg of complexity in the form of inhouse knowledge and tooling in each of the companies, there is nothing even close to a standard deployment system in either green field startups or FAANGs today.
  - meritt 7y ago
    > That's slightly horrific. I'd argue that the contemporary infatuation with mastery of complex toolchains as being the only possible solution to modern technical problems is far more horrific. Smart businesses focus on simple, effective solutions and avoid hiring engineers who obsess with rewriting everything using the latest over-hyped technology.
  - spoopyskelly 7y ago
    The only horrific thing is that you think that.