▲ | bruce511 15 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||
That's an interesting set of requirements though. If that is indeed your set of requirements then perhaps Kubernetes is a good choice. But the set seems somewhat arbitrary. Can you reduce it further? What if you don't require 2 cloud providers? What if you don't need zero-downtime? Indeed given that you have 4 machines (2 instances, x 2 providers) could a human manage this? Is Kubernetes overkill? I ask this merely to wonder. Naturally if you are rolling out hundreds of machines you should, and no doubt by then you have significant revenue (and thus able to pay for dedicated staff) , but where is the cross-over? Because to be honest most startups don't have enough traction to need 2 servers, never mind 4, never mind 100. I get the aspiration to be large. I get the need to spend that VC cash. But I wonder if Devops is often just premature and that focus would be better spent getting paying customers. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | valenterry 15 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||
> Can you reduce it further? What if you don't require 2 cloud providers? What if you don't need zero-downtime? I think the "2 cloud providers" criteria is maybe negotiable. Also, maybe there was a misunderstanding: I didn't mean to say I want to run it on two cloud providers. But rather that I run it on one of them but I could easily migrate to the other one if necessary. The zero-downtime one isn't. It's not necessarily so much about actually having zero-downtime. It's about that I don't want to think about it. Anything besides zero-downtime actually adds additional complexity to the development process. It has nothing to do with trying to be large actually. | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|