3 ms·
Fly Machines, if I understand them correctly, feels like a step backwards. Sure they might work better than "standard" Fly apps, but one of the motivating cases
by mbStavola 4y ago
Fly Machines, if I understand them correctly, feels like a step backwards. Sure they might work better than "standard" Fly apps, but one of the motivating cases for Fly is being able to effortlessly scale across the world without having a Ph.D. in CS and a fistful of certs for Cloud engineering. That vision for Fly is awesome, game changing even, ignoring their current stability issues.
Machines isn't that. From the documentation, it appears as though it's "just" a VM pinned to a single region and none of the "magic" of Fly really applies. If the server your VM is hosted on goes down, Fly won't redeploy your container. It's just downtime. Spinning up in other regions is something you have to think about and actually do. It seems closer to Heroku than it does Fly.
Maybe I am totally misunderstanding Fly Machines and their use-case, maybe they're aiming to close the gap between Machines and Fly apps. It's just a bit of a bummer to see something that looks like walking back the original "promise" of Fly and makes me question whether or not Fly is going to just become like every other PaaS (even if it's a really good one).
- ignoramous 4y agoAgree. Kurt's mentioned on the forums that autoscale is coming to Fly Machines. They haven't implemented it just yet. Even without autoscale, spinning up Machine clones in any of the 30+ Fly regions is as easy an instant scale-out you'll likely come across on any of the NewCloud platforms.