While exciting to see, I’ve tried them a couple of times for different projects and unfortunately never had a good experience with them. It’s disappointing because their product line up continues to grow, but they still seem to struggle a bit on the trust front.
Yes. We seen "Request" used by companies in this space, so tried to reuse. But yes, I think better to make it clear with simple word. Will get this adjusted today. Thanks :)
This is super interesting, but I have some questions.
I’ve explored running @Edge for performance gains and overall improved user experiences, but always have struggled with services like this (or fly.io or even just running my own VMs) and their data center locations.
Looking at your integrations page, for example, you call out PlanetScale so il use that as an example to illustrate my challenge. Koyeb has a region in SFO. PlanetScale’s closest region is in Oregon. For a database connection, that’s a lot of latency which likely undermines the performance gains of running a service at edge (at least in my use cases).
I’ve evaluated just rolling my own database replication for Edge and it’s not a huge deal but often finding information about data center providers to try and pair data with the compute can be challenging.
So the queries I’d like to pose: Are you able to provide Speedtest endpoints or data center information for collocating other resources near each deployed Koyeb region? Do you plan to offer lower level access to compute to address this kind of use case? Is there another implementation angle to this I am missing?
Agree, data location is indeed a central challenge when building globally distributed apps.
We picked the largest peering points in Europe and the US for the two first locations aka Washington / US-East and Frankfurt in Europe. For the following 4 locations which we announced last week in early access [1], we tried to pick the next best-interconnected locations on the world map: SFO / the valley, Singapore, Paris, and Tokyo.
We definitely need to do a better job in the doc [2], we can definitely provide some mapping matrix and will be working on some latency measurements/speedtest/iperf servers.
In this direction, did you look at PolyScale [3]? They do the job of database caching at Edge.
What do you have in mind regarding lower-level access to compute? We're looking at providing block storage and direct TCP/IP support if that's what you have in mind.
If they are running on AWS (which it looks like they are), they aren’t going to be able to undercut AWS. For a retail user who doesn’t want to commit to RIs or have enough volume for an EDP, sure PS can be cheaper.
The value I found is being able to do multi-region read replicas with no compute overhead for lower traffic geos.
I like the idea of PS and have toyed around with the idea of migrating to it but there are some glaring issues I don’t want to deal with:
- no native way to export backups and avoid vendor lock in (or pay for the row reads to generate regular backups)
- contradictory cost model. Their pricing page reads “Every time a query retrieves a row from the database, it is counted as a row read. Every time a row is written to the database, it is counted as a row written.” while their docs state “Rows read is a measure of the work that the database engine does, not a measure of the number of rows returned. Every row read from a table during execution adds to the rows read count, regardless of how many rows are returned.”
It’s very common for scale-out architectures to read more data than is ultimately returned, because the former is pulled from individual shards and then some centralized filtering / post processing is applied in some API middleware layer.
Trying to fix that by pushing down more of the query/execution is sometimes but not always feasible or practical.
(responding to GP) “Full table scans are expensive” is a better way to reframe the pricing model (at least before this pricing change). The distinction is between rows _examined_ vs rows _returned to a db client_. Even the latter is a tricky concept with vitess since it’s a routing/sharding system that sits on top of vanilla MySQL instances.
I guess I’m one who likes the office. Not every day. But frequently. And I think I could build a culture with in-office time that would out-compete a remote-only competitor, domestic only or offshore hybrid.
> What part of this culture would make it more competitive than any remote-only equivalent?
Hiring, the same way RO outfits can access unique talent, and information transfer, particularly to newer team members. Also, in industries where over-documentation is an unnecessary liability.
I'm a software engineer, and I think the fully remote-work culture can often be less personally fulfilling.
I enjoy going to an office, having a change of scenery, interacting with people (both close friends and casual acquaintances), brainstorming ideas with a small group around a whiteboard, getting lunch with colleagues, etc, etc...
Sure, the "writing code" part of the job is easier when there are fewer distractions. And a crowded open office can be an annoying source of distractions.
And I definitely enjoy having lunch more often with my family, or hanging out with the dogs, or sitting out on my deck under the trees while I read my morning email.
But working in an office was nice too, and I miss it.
How many people do you know? When WFH was mandated, I hated it. When the mandate was finally kicked, I loved going back to the office, and have spent almost every workday at the office, despite having the possibility to do 40% WFH if I wanted. No, I don't want that, thank you. Not a coder, working as admin. I like people, that is why I work in an office. And personal experience is definitely that working together with people who are currently at home usually slows down processes quite a bit. Besides, sometimes, WFH-people are just not reachable, because reasons... Daughter has sneezed the first time, or wife has decided she needs to go for her yoga class and coworker suddenly needs to care for a 4-year-old... And, god forbid, if you ever say anything when these blatantly shameless things happen, you are the bad guy.
The working environment which is conducive to a successful developer vs a successful admin are, most likely (in my experience), two completely different environments.
"Besides, sometimes, WFH-people are just not reachable, because reasons... Daughter has sneezed the first time, or wife has decided she needs to go for her yoga class and coworker suddenly needs to care for a 4-year-old... And, god forbid, if you ever say anything when these blatantly shameless things happen, you are the bad guy."
I assume the point, not that it's being put very well, is that the bar for events that render one unavailable, possibly for some unpredictable period, is now lower. Things that previously might not even have registered can now take people away from their metaphorical desk, and there's no scope for simply searching the office until you find them. The average development project is a team effort, and as such, as a developer you are paid for short-notice ad-hoc availability for collaboration or questioning as well as for producing pre-planned individual work items that you mark done on Jira.
Sure, as a disabled person, I totally like it when abled-body people like you call me "ableist", that is so funny that I almost forget how shitty that move is. Yes, you didnt know, I know, but, keep disability out of your arguments please, people with real disabilities will thank you for that.
And there is a difference between "care duties" and the "papa is at home so we can pester him with family stuff all day long". We have 2 weeks of extra leave for parents, they already have extra priviledges compared to non-parents. If someone declares a few days off because they have to fix something important with their family, that is fine and never was an issue.
But WFH people suddenly realizing at 10 AM that they can not be bothered to work for the next 3 hours is definitely unfair and overstretching the priviledges.
Nah, admin of course means rapist, didn't you know?
WFH-advocates turning to "arguments" like your post is one reason why I oppose this new trend of entitlement. You people really think you are on top of the world and everyone has to dance to your tunes, right? I hope the market will fix this. Go and find a WFH company that lets you slack-off from home all day long. And then, shut up!
Are you referring to individual employees or the companies? Clearly many companies are mandating RTO despite remote/self-determined hybrid supported by a strong majority of employee sentiment (and often performance data)
Simplest thing to do is to confiscate the vehicles and levy fines large enough that its in the financial best interest of these companies to ensure that basic road safety situations are at the top of their priority lists.
The state should confiscate or remove the vehicle, bill them for storage or for the removal operation and also fine the company and take it to court if something goes wrong because of them.
This looks really interesting, and something that could solve a semi-immediate pain point but I can’t find any data on the production plan other than the price. Is that information available anywhere?
Thanks, we are working on adding more details about the production plan and I agree that it's currently sparse. We do have some details about the limitations of the free tier[1].
With the production plan we increase the memory limit of the backends to 2GB, up the number of concurrent backends to 20 (it's a soft limit), up the limit on backend runtime to 24h, and have images eagerly pushed rather than lazily pulled for faster start times. If you're open to chatting about your use case, feel free to reach out to the email on my HN profile.
To be fair, the amount of traffic we are talking about is not really that significant. GMP only allocating one core [1] for these requests and being frustrated that after so long they might have to increase the resource allocation or change something else is a bit unreasonable too.
It's totally reasonable to say that it isn't malicious and they aren't going to stop it, but it's unreasonable and unhelpful to add "seems like your servers just suck". They also missed or failed to mention that there are 700 forks of the project running the same thing at the same time.
> it's unreasonable and unhelpful to add "seems like your servers just suck"
What is the basis for this quote? Ctrl+F-ing on what look like the relevant pages turns up nothing. Maybe I missed it, but Google seems only to know about 1 instance of phrase from the last week (and it's the one in your comment).
I’m a bit confused as to why 700 automated clone requests per day would be an unreasonable amount of traffic for a project like GMP. That doesn’t sound like much traffic to me, especially since they reportedly have a 24 core CPU with 256GB of RAM. Is cloning a mercurial repo highly server intensive?
I dunno. To me it seems like if a web server can't deal with 700 simulatenous requests it should probably call it quits. They're of course within their rights to just block the connections but it certainly doesn't look like a denial of service attack to me. Submitting a link to HN probably causes even bigger traffic spikes.
700 simultaneous static requests certainly. 7,000+ in fact. Even 700 average requests for dynamic content. But each of those request was to clone a repo which is not an average dynamic request: each require a fair amount of CPU time (and possibly IO thought hopefully the server(s) have enough RAM for cache for that but to be the case).
Sure, but even if each clone tied up an entire core of their Epyc 7402P for 5 seconds (which seems pessimistic to me) the entire traffic spike would be over in 2.5 minutes.
I'm confused as well. Seems like a negligible amount of traffic at first glance. The administrator mentioned compression, could it really have such a big impact?
^ So much this. From the assumption of malicious activity (which is a far leap given such a predictable pattern of calls), to bragging about “server-class hardware” and “great connectivity”, this doesn’t seem like a super solid setup.
In before “it’s just one guy”: there are a thousand ways to solve this that are not expensive or complicated.
Should the offending party have been a better consumer? Yes.
Is it fair to entirely blame the user versus implementing additional caches and safeguards to make it an annoyance and not the end of the world emergency GMP is making it out to be? Definitely not.
Hyperbole never ceases to amaze me. On one hand, I know how wasteful "CI" systems are. We offer a docker image from a custom docker registry. Since we started offering it 3 years ago, we've had 1 billion pulls. 990 million pulls were from CI systems. But to claim that the operator of those CI systems is "attacking" us would be pretty bizarre. Though bizarre seems to govern online discourse when it comes to most things
Those 700 clones would all hit at exactly the same time. That's quite a load for a single server, especially since Mercurial can't be cached that easily.
Mercurial clones can be cached quite easily with 'clonebundles', a Mercurial feature that allows redirecting a clone to instead download a single 'bundle' (which could come from a different server or set of servers).
That’s in line with the response I’m used to get from cybersecurity teams at the large company I work for. It is neither reasonable nor appropriate in tone but I have got used to it being apparently the best they can do/can be bothered to write.
