Most active commenters
  • Fire-Dragon-DoL(5)

←back to thread

Fly.io Postgres cluster down for 3 days, no word from them about it

(webcache.googleusercontent.com)
797 points burnerbob | 11 comments | 20 Jul 23 23:42 UTC | HN request time: 0.833s | source | bottom
Show context
aledalgrande ◴[21 Jul 23 03:15 UTC] No.36809594[source]▶
Wondering if for small/bootstrapped projects there's any alternative people suggest? Fly has a nice UX and accessible prices, but it's unstable at best. I use the big clouds at work, but for personal they are $$$. Also I want to keep devops tending asymptotically to zero.
replies(6): >>36809634 #>>36809757 #>>36809923 #>>36809986 #>>36810231 #>>36817346 #
gowthamgts12 ◴[21 Jul 23 03:22 UTC] No.36809634[source]▶
Although, i have never used them, you can explore railway.app. it is the closest to fly.io and never heard any bad things.

I personally at the moment use digitalocean without any issues, but there's always the maintenance overhead of managing a server yourself.

replies(2): >>36809768 #>>36812801 #
1. Fire-Dragon-DoL ◴[21 Jul 23 03:46 UTC] No.36809768[source]▶
I wish digitalocean offered decent pricing for spaces (s3). Unfortunately it starts at 5$, which is an enormous price for storing 70 small images, but s3 would greatly simplify my server management moving state entirely outside the server (managed database + managed object storage)
replies(2): >>36809782 #>>36809841 #
2. bongobingo1 ◴[21 Jul 23 03:51 UTC] No.36809782[source]▶
> price for storing 70 small images

Do you have to use an object store in that case? Or does it have to be separate from whatever application instance?

replies(1): >>36810063 #
3. iampims ◴[21 Jul 23 03:58 UTC] No.36809841[source]▶
You could use Cloudflare R2, it's pretty cheap overall.
replies(1): >>36810068 #
4. Fire-Dragon-DoL ◴[21 Jul 23 04:40 UTC] No.36810063[source]▶
I don't have to use an object store, but it makes the cost of setting up a server more expensive if I use the filesystem, if I delete the instance, the data is gone. A volume kinda offset this, but it's way less portable and accessible only by one instance at a time

The peace of mind of managed is nice, all I have to think about is running the app, without having to deal with making sure db and files don't get lost

replies(1): >>36810481 #
5. Fire-Dragon-DoL ◴[21 Jul 23 04:40 UTC] No.36810068[source]▶
I did not realize they have an s3 compatible service
6. Dylan16807 ◴[21 Jul 23 06:00 UTC] No.36810481{3}[source]▶
At that level I think I'd just put the images in the database.
replies(2): >>36811948 #>>36821661 #
7. Takennickname ◴[21 Jul 23 09:51 UTC] No.36811948{4}[source]▶
In the git repo even
replies(1): >>36821651 #
8. Fire-Dragon-DoL ◴[21 Jul 23 23:55 UTC] No.36821651{5}[source]▶
The images are supplied by the users, so that wouldn't be an option
9. Fire-Dragon-DoL ◴[21 Jul 23 23:56 UTC] No.36821661{4}[source]▶
That's an option, but I want to keep things simple and the assumption is usually "filesystem" but weirdly most libraries assume S3 usage. I don't think I've seen native support for db-stored images in any of the libraries I use, which is sad but a reality.
replies(2): >>36823046 #>>36824604 #
10. Dylan16807 ◴[22 Jul 23 03:47 UTC] No.36823046{5}[source]▶
Maybe not directly in libraries but there's a few programs to make a fuse filesystem backed by a database.
11. bongobingo1 ◴[22 Jul 23 08:57 UTC] No.36824604{5}[source]▶
Ya cant just throw em at a blob type field/column?