Hacker News

As much as I like it, I find C# to be too inflexible of a language for infrastructure code. I tried with Pulumi for a while but moved to TypeScript as it works so much better. Structural typing makes your life a lot easier.

As SRE dealing with former Pulumi, "Hey Devs can use code to deploy infrastructure" is not great idea you think it is. I've seen some real ugly conditional behavior where I'm like "Is this or is this not going to run? I honestly can't tell."

Apply is really straightforward. The dictionary stuff is very annoying overhead but it’s nice keeping everything in one language.

> Give me Terraform (as much as I hate it) any day

Terraform sure is a quirky little DSL ain’t it? It’s so weirdly verbose.

But at the same time I can create some azure function app, setup my GitHub build pipeline, get auth0 happy and in theory hook up parts of stripe all in one system. All those random diverse API’s plumbed together and somehow it manages to work.

But boy howdy is that language weird.

> 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.

The biggest hurdle I've encountered is cross-stack resource sharing, especially in case of bidirectional dependencies like KMS keys and IAM roles.

I also had a really rough go with cdk. I personally found the lack of upsert functionality -- you can't use a resource if it exists or create if it doesn't -- to make it way more effort than I felt was useful. Plus a lack of useful error messages... maybe I'm dumb, but I can't recommend it to small companies.

Cant use bun to deploy CDK, CDK fails as it looks for package-lock yarn-lock or pnpm’s exclusively

So dumb. Trying to move to SST for only that reason

but if you add cdk to the path, you can still deploy, its just that your cicd and deployment scripts are not all using bun anymore

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

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?

Kamal is simply NIH K8s made by an unreliable company with poor leadership. No thanks, not for my prod infra!

Worth noting that most of the terraform documentation for classic pulumi providers (providers build on top of TF providers) is still relevant to Pulumi.

Agreed. On the bright side, I was able to migrate managed k8s on DO to managed k8s in GCP with very minimal work since it was managed via pulumi.

Yeah, I've been really disappointed with Digital Ocean so far. Not just from a pricing perspective but from a customer service perspective.

Anyone using CDK should switch to Pulumi though.

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.

Please change the title text unless you add some discussion of the cost differences to the page you linked. However useful your tool is, nothing on this page mentions AWS or costs.

and even if you do, it’s usually a system design problem that you’re maintaining

on one hand, I can see how this is an unfalsifiable standard, on the other hand I can see the utility of solving a friction for people that messed up

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

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.

This looks too experimental for me to trust with production deployments.

I wouldn't even use DO for that, unless it's like a private server for just your friends.

I won't touch DO after they took my droplet offline for 3 hours because I got DDoS'd by someone that was upset that I banned them from an IRC channel for spamming N-bombs and other racial slurs.

What's your definition of real cloud?

And can you name a real cloud that charges a half-reasonable price for bandwidth? I consider $10/TB to be half-reasonable.