[HN Gopher] Forget CDK and AWS's insane costs. Pulumi and Digita...
___________________________________________________________________
Forget CDK and AWS's insane costs. Pulumi and DigitalOcean to the
rescue
Author : mavdi
Score : 58 points
Date : 2024-11-06 17:15 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| mavdi wrote:
| Hi everyone,
|
| We've gone through a lot of pain to get this blueprint working
| since our AWS costs were getting out of hand but we didn't want
| to part ways with CDK.
|
| We've now got the same stack structure going with Pulumi and
| Digital ocean, having the same ease of development with at least
| 60% cost reduction.
| vundercind wrote:
| Keep an eye on reachability and performance. I've seen DO
| consistently perform terribly and/or drop connections for
| months (that is, didn't look like some brief routing glitch
| somewhere) for some US and Canadian routes (not, like, Sri
| Lanka or something) on excellent Internet connections. The fix
| was moving to AWS, problem gone. It _felt like_ a shitty-
| peering-agreements issue.
| nostrebored wrote:
| People will pretend that this quality difference doesn't
| exist in networking, uptime, server quality.
|
| It's not a drop in replacement. It might be worth it
| depending on what you're doing.
| vundercind wrote:
| Frustratingly, it's also something that doesn't
| meaningfully appear on any features list or comparison
| sheet.
| mise_en_place wrote:
| EKS has become a clusterf*ck to manage and provision. This looks
| very useful. Bare metal k8s, even running on EC2, might be
| another option.
| GauntletWizard wrote:
| You don't choose EKS because it's easy to manage. You choose it
| because you intend to use the bevy of other AWS hosted
| services. The clusterfuck of management is directly related to
| that.
|
| The alternative, which I feel is far too common (and I say this
| as someone who directly benefits from it): You choose AWS
| because it's a "Safe" choice and your incubator gets you a
| bunch of free credits for a year or two. You pay nothing for
| compute for the first year, but instead pay a devops guy a
| bunch to do all the setup - In the end it's about a wash
| because you have to pay a devops guy to handle your CI and
| deploy anyway, you're just paying a little more in the latter.
| trallnag wrote:
| What's your issue with EKS? I operate several very simple and
| small single-tenant clusters, and I have to touch the
| infrastructure only once a year for updates
| petcat wrote:
| Kubernetes no thanks. Terraform + Kamal [1] on Digital Ocean is
| the way I deploy/run apps now.
|
| [1] https://kamal-deploy.org/
| mati365 wrote:
| 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
| petcat wrote:
| > 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 wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| I'm aware of what Podman and Systemd are. Apparently you
| are not aware of what Kamal is. Open documentation, then
| press reply.
| ngrilly wrote:
| Does it support zero downtime deploys?
| mati365 wrote:
| Why not? Install trafeik or any other load balancer, setup
| two services, and restart one after one.
| stackskipton wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| 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).
| mplewis wrote:
| Kamal is simply NIH K8s made by an unreliable company with poor
| leadership. No thanks, not for my prod infra!
| lysace wrote:
| Pulumi is very neat with straight AWS, too. I suspect this is the
| primary use case.
| pmarreck wrote:
| Anyone use Garnix? https://garnix.io/
| mplewis wrote:
| This looks too experimental for me to trust with production
| deployments.
| turtlebits wrote:
| I wish CDK was fully baked enough to actually use. It's _still_
| missing coverage for some AWS services (sometimes you have to do
| things in cloudformation, which sucks) and integrating existing
| infra doesn 't work consistently. Oh and it creates
| cloudformation stacks behind the scenes and makes for
| troubleshooting hell.
| Aeolun wrote:
| > sometimes you have to do things in cloudformation, which
| sucks
|
| All of CDK does things in cloudformation, which made the whole
| thing stillborn as far as I'm concerned.
|
| The CDK team goes to some lengths to make it better, but it's
| all lambda based kludges.
| Aeolun wrote:
| I don't think Digital Ocean is all that much better for pricing,
| but using Pulumi over CDK is a pure win as far as I'm concerned.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-06 23:00 UTC)