5 ms·
I tried Jets a couple years back. I wanted the ease of Rails, but with (ostensibly) a cheaper AWS bill. Actually writing your app and testing it is just as eas
by ryukoposting 3y ago
I tried Jets a couple years back. I wanted the ease of Rails, but with (ostensibly) a cheaper AWS bill.
Actually writing your app and testing it is just as easy as it is with Rails. That's good. The hellish cryptic errors when it borks a CloudFormation config? Not so good. Ultimately I gave up and went back to Rails.
With Jets, you still have to keep in mind that the infrastructure is way more complex than Rails. Jets tries to hide away that complexity, and it does a good job... until it doesn't. If you're an AWS expert (I'm not) then this is a great tool and you should try it. If you aren't, just stick with Rails.
- ajmurmann 3y agoI've had great success running Rails apps with Google Run. If you can live with the initial request sometimes taking 1-2s it's great. All my usage is within the free tier and once it's set up with Google Build, it's fire and forget
- andrelaszlo 3y agoCloud Run? Did you do any work to get cold boots faster?
- giovannibonetti 3y agoYou can have your cake and eat it, too. Have a minimum of 1 instance "on", with the CPU in low-power mode until a request comes. This way, you get low cost in idle times without cold starts. https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/serverless/cloud-run-adds-min-instances-feature-for-latency-sensitive-apps https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/serverless/cloud-run-...
- iamflimflam1 3y agoBut you get charged for that 1 instance running all the time which kind of defeats the whole point of it being serverless?
- giovannibonetti 3y agoThey say in the blog post those instances are charged a very reduced value when idle. IIRC something in the order of 20-30% of the original one.