4 ms·

When my system is running happily on a single VM with no real robustness issues then I don't really need to solve those robustness issues, and certainly not by

When my system is running happily on a single VM with no real robustness issues then I don't really need to solve those robustness issues, and certainly not by bringing in a complex distributed platform to run it on. Or when my lack of robustness isn't costing me enough to make it worth it to spend the engineering cycles to adopt that platform. One way or another I have to be at a scale where it actually makes sense to make this investment vs just doing the simple/easy thing that's good enough for where I'm at.

bborud 4y ago
There is a lot of ground between "runs on a single VM" to "runs on thousands of instances". In fact I would think most companies that deliver some online service fit into that category. For instance, I don't regard one of our products that runs in three availability zones and has 3-4 instances per AZ as being "large scale". It is still a small system. And it doesn't run in multiple AZs for performance reasons but because we really need high availability. We embedded discovery, failover and automatic cluster management in the server software itself. But it isn't really how we'd like to do it. But it is still less of a hassle than running K8S. (It also means that we can do that if you license our software to run it on-prem on pretty much most runtime environments, and that has its value, but again, this isn't functionality you want or should have to do yourself)
- devonbleak 4y ago
  Agreed it's mostly undifferentiated heavy lifting still, and agreed it /should/ be easier. It previously took my team something like a year to get our infra all autoscaling - something I've found other teams aren't as willing to invest in if they're just running on a handful of instances. At ~12 instances probably still in "pets aren't so bad" territory.

4 ms·

When my system is running happily on a single VM with no real robustness issues then I don't really need to solve those robustness issues, and certainly not by

by devonbleak 4y ago

bborud 4y ago
There is a lot of ground between "runs on a single VM" to "runs on thousands of instances". In fact I would think most companies that deliver some online service fit into that category. For instance, I don't regard one of our products that runs in three availability zones and has 3-4 instances per AZ as being "large scale". It is still a small system. And it doesn't run in multiple AZs for performance reasons but because we really need high availability. We embedded discovery, failover and automatic cluster management in the server software itself. But it isn't really how we'd like to do it. But it is still less of a hassle than running K8S. (It also means that we can do that if you license our software to run it on-prem on pretty much most runtime environments, and that has its value, but again, this isn't functionality you want or should have to do yourself)
- devonbleak 4y ago
  Agreed it's mostly undifferentiated heavy lifting still, and agreed it /should/ be easier. It previously took my team something like a year to get our infra all autoscaling - something I've found other teams aren't as willing to invest in if they're just running on a handful of instances. At ~12 instances probably still in "pets aren't so bad" territory.