←back to thread

Huly – Open-source project management platform

(github.com)
466 points blacktechnology | 2 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 #
nine_k ◴[14 Oct 24 06:45 UTC] No.41834861[source]▶
Cheap, easy, powerful: choose any two.

- Cheap and easy: embed into one executable file SQLite, a KV store, a queue, and everything else. Trivial to self-host: download and run! But you're severely limited in the number of concurrent users, ways to back up the databases, visibility / monitoring. If a desktop-class solution is good for you, wonderful, but be aware of the limitations.

- Cheap and powerful: All open-source, built from well-known parts, requires several containers to run, e.g. databases, queues, web servers / proxies, build tools, etc. You get all the power, can scale an tweak to your heart's content while self-hosting. If you're not afraid to tackle all this, wonderful, but be aware of the breadth of the technical chops you'll need.

- Easy and powerful: the cloud. AWS / Azure / DO will manage things for you, providing redundancy, scaling, and very simple setup. You may even have some say in tuning specific components (that is, buying a more expensive tier for them). Beautiful, but it will cost you. If the cost is less than the value you get, wonderful. Be aware that you'll store your data on someone else's computers though.

There's no known (to me) way to obtain all three qualities.

replies(11): >>41834928 #>>41835286 #>>41835732 #>>41835777 #>>41835869 #>>41835978 #>>41836031 #>>41836319 #>>41836455 #>>41838157 #>>41839778 #
1. nucleardog ◴[14 Oct 24 14:59 UTC] No.41838157[source]▶
> Cheap, easy, powerful: choose any two.

I don't think there's any reason the same codebase can't support different trade-offs here.

Maybe I'm just looking at the past through rose-coloured glasses, but it seems to me that was the norm before we standardized on distributing apps as an entire stack through a docker-compose.yml file.

Your app depends on redis for caching. If no redis instance is configured, go ahead and just instantiate a "null" caching implementation (and print a warning to the log if it makes you feel better) and carry on.

You're using minio for object storage. Is there any reason you couldn't, I don't know, use a local folder on disk instead?

Think of it as "progressive enhancement" for the ops stack. Let your app run simply in a small single node deploy, but support scaling up to something larger.

replies(1): >>41838975 #
2. itake ◴[14 Oct 24 16:17 UTC] No.41838975[source]▶
IMHO, redis is either used as a key value store (which can easily be replicated in application code) or as a central storage to synchronize tasks (like counters).

For the first case, dev should just build on SQLite or use application code. For the latter case, choose a single storage engine and use it for everything (Postgres?).