4 ms·

Man, i already intended to try Fly for my upcoming hosting needs. Ya'll keep making the pot sweeter, though. I'm really curious to see how some of these SQLite

Man, i already intended to try Fly for my upcoming hosting needs. Ya'll keep making the pot sweeter, though. I'm really curious to see how some of these SQLite toolings will work in the "dumb and simple app" case. Ie i'm writing an app that is focused on being local, single instance. Which i know is blasphemy to Fly, but it's my target audience - self hosting first and foremost. I had planned on trying Fly through the lens of a DigitalOcean replacement. Notably something to manage the machine for me, but with similar cost and ease. In that realm, i wonder which of the numerous SQLite offerings Fly has will be useful to my single-instance-focused app backed by SQLite and Filesystem. Some awesome tech from the Fly team regardless. Exciting times :)

benbjohnson 3y ago
Author here. I love single-instance deployments. I think they make a lot of sense when you don't need high-availability. We have quite a number of people that run Litestream on a single instance with a volume attached. We run Litestream internally in several places as well. LiteFS tries to improve upon Litestream by making it simple to integrate backups and make it easy to scale out your application in different regions without changing your app. I don't think every application needs to be on the edge but we're hoping to make it easy enough that it's more a question of "why not?"
- mtlynch 3y ago
  Hey Ben, great to see this progress! Is it a goal of LiteFS to serve single-instance deployments as well as Litestream does? Would you say LiteFS has already achieved that at this point, or would Litestream still be the better match for single-instance apps? I've experimented with LiteFS and liked it, but all my apps are single-deployment, so I've stuck with Litestream. But I know LiteFS is receiving much more investment, so I'm wondering if Litestream is long for this world.
  - benbjohnson 3y ago
    Thanks, Michael! Before LiteFS Cloud, I would have said that LiteFS doesn't add much value over vanilla SQLite for single-node deployments. But with the new streaming backup feature, I think it makes it easier to run single-node applications than Litestream. There's some additional benefits like being able to import/export the database remotely and doing live point-in-time restores. The main drawback to LiteFS compared to Litestream is write performance but we're alleviating that by implementing a VFS option in the future. We do have some nice features coming down the pipe for LiteFS so you can use it with purely ephemeral nodes. Let me know if you get a chance to try it out and if there's any improvements you'd like to see.
    - mtlynch 3y ago
      Cool, I'll give it a spin. Thanks, Ben!
bradgessler 3y ago
I’m working on this for Rails apps at https://github.com/oldmoe/litestack/pull/12 https://github.com/oldmoe/litestack/pull/12 The idea is that people with small-to-medium size Rails Turbo apps should be able to deploy them without needing Redis or Postgres. I’ve gotten as far as deploying this stack _without_ LiteFS and it works great. The only downside is the application queues requests on deploy, but for some smaller apps it’s acceptable to have the client wait for a few seconds while the app restarts. When I get that PR merged I’ll write about how it works on Fly and publish it to https://fly.io/ruby-dispatch/ https://fly.io/ruby-dispatch/.

benbjohnson 3y ago

Author here. I love single-instance deployments. I think they make a lot of sense when you don't need high-availability. We have quite a number of people that run Litestream on a single instance with a volume attached. We run Litestream internally in several places as well. LiteFS tries to improve upon Litestream by making it simple to integrate backups and make it easy to scale out your application in different regions without changing your app. I don't think every application needs to be on the edge but we're hoping to make it easy enough that it's more a question of "why not?"

mtlynch 3y ago
Hey Ben, great to see this progress! Is it a goal of LiteFS to serve single-instance deployments as well as Litestream does? Would you say LiteFS has already achieved that at this point, or would Litestream still be the better match for single-instance apps? I've experimented with LiteFS and liked it, but all my apps are single-deployment, so I've stuck with Litestream. But I know LiteFS is receiving much more investment, so I'm wondering if Litestream is long for this world.
- benbjohnson 3y ago
  Thanks, Michael! Before LiteFS Cloud, I would have said that LiteFS doesn't add much value over vanilla SQLite for single-node deployments. But with the new streaming backup feature, I think it makes it easier to run single-node applications than Litestream. There's some additional benefits like being able to import/export the database remotely and doing live point-in-time restores. The main drawback to LiteFS compared to Litestream is write performance but we're alleviating that by implementing a VFS option in the future. We do have some nice features coming down the pipe for LiteFS so you can use it with purely ephemeral nodes. Let me know if you get a chance to try it out and if there's any improvements you'd like to see.
  - mtlynch 3y ago
    Cool, I'll give it a spin. Thanks, Ben!

bradgessler 3y ago

I’m working on this for Rails apps at https://github.com/oldmoe/litestack/pull/12 https://github.com/oldmoe/litestack/pull/12 The idea is that people with small-to-medium size Rails Turbo apps should be able to deploy them without needing Redis or Postgres. I’ve gotten as far as deploying this stack _without_ LiteFS and it works great. The only downside is the application queues requests on deploy, but for some smaller apps it’s acceptable to have the client wait for a few seconds while the app restarts. When I get that PR merged I’ll write about how it works on Fly and publish it to https://fly.io/ruby-dispatch/ https://fly.io/ruby-dispatch/.