←back to thread

Huly – Open-source project management platform

(github.com)
466 points blacktechnology | 1 comments | 14 Oct 24 03:16 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
danpalmer ◴[14 Oct 24 04:10 UTC] No.41834089[source]▶
Reading the deployment information, there's an interesting tension here with applications that target self-hosting.

Deploying this requires running 5 different open source servers (databases, proxies, etc), and 5 different services that form part of this suite. If I were self-hosting this in a company I now need to be an expert in lots of different systems and potentially how to scale them, back them up, etc. The trade-offs to be made here are very different to when architecting a typical SaaS backend, where this sort of architecture might be fine.

I've been going through this myself with a hobby project. I'm designing it for self-hosting, and it's a radically different way of working to what I'm used to (operating services just for my company). I've been using SQLite and local disk storage so that there's essentially just 2 components to operate and scale – application replicas, and shared disk storage (which is easy to backup too). I'd rather be using Postgres, I'd rather be using numerous other services, background queue processors, etc, but each of those components is something that my users would need to understand, and therefore something to be minimised far more strictly than if it were just me/one team.

Huly looks like a great product, but I'm not sure I'd want to self-host.

replies(28): >>41834100 #>>41834175 #>>41834204 #>>41834282 #>>41834308 #>>41834334 #>>41834356 #>>41834450 #>>41834538 #>>41834603 #>>41834672 #>>41834792 #>>41834861 #>>41834865 #>>41834973 #>>41835133 #>>41835222 #>>41835339 #>>41835929 #>>41835949 #>>41836134 #>>41836856 #>>41836958 #>>41838118 #>>41839489 #>>41840080 #>>41876861 #>>41905212 #
emptiestplace ◴[14 Oct 24 04:12 UTC] No.41834100[source]▶
Are you against using containers?
replies(1): >>41834129 #
1. danpalmer ◴[14 Oct 24 04:17 UTC] No.41834129[source]▶
Not at all, but they don't solve this problem. They help, but just because a database is in a container doesn't mean you don't need to know how it operates. Containerised databases don't necessarily come with maintenance processes automated, or may automate them in a way that isn't suitable for your needs.

Postgres vacuuming comes to mind as an example. Pre-built docker images of it often just ignore the problem and leave it up to the defaults, but the defaults rarely work in production and need some thought. Similarly, you can tune Postgres for the type of storage it's running on, but a pre-built container is unlikely to come with that tuning process automated, or with the right tuning parameters for your underlying storage. Maybe you build these things yourself, but now you need to understand Postgres, and that's the key problem.

Containers do mostly solve running the 5 built-in services, at least at small scale, but may still need tuning to make sure each pod has the right balance of resources, has the right number of replicas, etc.