4 ms·

Kubernetes no thanks. Terraform + Kamal [1] on Digital Ocean is the way I deploy/run apps now. [1] https://kamal-deploy.org/ https://kamal-deploy.org/

• mati365 2y ago
  Plain Podman systemd integration is way more powerful and secure, as it does not mess with firewall and allows to run rootless containers using services. It's even possible to run healthchecks and enforce building images just before starting service making on-demand containers using systemd-proxyd possible. Check example: https://github.com/Mati365/hetzner-podman-bunjs-deploy https://github.com/Mati365/hetzner-podman-bunjs-deploy
  • petcat 2y ago
    > way more powerful and secure I don't care about powerful. That's the opposite of what I want. I could just use k8s if I cared about that.
    • mati365 2y ago
      It looks like you don't even care about opening documentation before pressing reply. Podman is a simple hammer without any moving parts, that used properly can be used to build fancy stuff without much knowledge.
      • petcat 2y ago
        I'm aware of what Podman and Systemd are. Apparently you are not aware of what Kamal is. Open documentation, then press reply.
        • woleium 2y ago
          Be nice folks, we are all here to learn :)
  • ngrilly 2y ago
    Does it support zero downtime deploys?
    • mati365 2y ago
      Why not? Install trafeik or any other load balancer, setup two services, and restart one after one.
      • FridgeSeal 2y ago
        Ah yes my favourite thing to have to do, rolling my own deploys and rollbacks. It’s stuff like this that’s just a thousand papercuts that dissuades me from using these “simpler” tools. By the time you’ve rebuilt by hand what you need, you’ve just created a worse version of the “more complex” solution. I get it if your workload is so simple ir low requirement that zero-downtime deploys, rollbacks, health/liveness, automatic volumes, monitoring etc are features you don’t want or need, but “it’s just as good, just DIY all the things” doesn’t make it a viable alternative in my mind.
        • stackskipton 2y ago
          Sure but Kumal getting all those features means it strays close to Kubernetes in complexity and it quickly because "Why not Kubernetes? At least that is massive popular with a ton of support."
          • selcuka 2y ago
            I disagree. An opinionated tool can be as powerful as, but much simpler than a generic tool.
          • ngrilly 2y ago
            Kamal is doing most of this, but on a single node. This is the limitation that differentiates it from k8s, but also makes it much simpler.
      • striking 2y ago
• stackskipton 2y ago
  I've looked into Kamal but it feels so "It's as complex as Kubernetes but isn't so support is going to be nightmarish." Why is this better then Ansible + Docker Compose?
  • petcat 2y ago
    You could certainly implement Kamal just with Ansible and Docker Compose. It's just an abstraction that does it for you and handles all the edge-cases. (Kamal doesn't use Ansible, it has its own SSH lib).
  • amzans 2y ago
    Technically, it’s not much different from using Ansible to run Docker on remote hosts. What it provides is a set of conventions based on what most web apps look like. Eg. built-in proxy with automatic TLS and zero downtime deployments, first-class support for a DB and cache, encrypted secrets, etc. It’s definitely not for every use case, but for your typical 3-tier monolith on a handful of servers I found it does the job well.
• mplewis 2y ago
  Kamal is simply NIH K8s made by an unreliable company with poor leadership. No thanks, not for my prod infra!
  • archy_ 2y ago
    I don't trust any project with a Discord listed so prominently Give me a forum (even Discourse will do) , I'm tired of needing 3rd party spyware to interact with developers. That it is all closed off from search engines makes it even worse