[eliq]

So, the way I deploy code is to SSH into my server, clone my repo from GitHub, setup the db and start the relevant systemd services. If I need to install updates it's a simple git pull and restart the services. I can use something like ansible for configuration management to reduce the manual SSH part.

For someone like me, what benefit do these PaaS offerings provide?

[PaulRobinson]

Automated repeatability, automated rollbacks, self-documenting infrastructure and the ability to deploy with a single command or automatically on a successful test build.

That means you can merge to master and know the build will just get released when the tests pass without having to do any of that work. Further, as the needs of your infrastructure or DB develop (you are hoping for growth, right?), your deployment stays automated, you can add more complexity to your setup with little additional workload, and you can hire other developers who can safely ship to production without having to be shown any of your method.

[Silhouette]

The question always seems to be how much extra overhead you incur setting these things up in the first place for a relatively small business or side project. I've been curious about these kinds of automation tools for as long as they've been around, but they always look like more trouble than they're worth for any of the projects and deployment strategies I'm involved with at that smaller end of the scale.

Maybe they work better if you're doing a relatively standard DB + API + front-end kind of setup, which as it happens nothing I work on actually is. Or maybe they just don't really pay for themselves until you're working at a scale where a simple copy/clone step and everyday scripting tools aren't sufficient to run everything routine anyway?

[WrtCdEvrydy]

I swear by Flynn because it can mount Web Apps, Docker Containers and just anything that runs inside of Docker under Linux.

I often find new sexy stuff on the Hacker News frontpage and just mount it right on my Flynn cluster to fuck with it.

[Silhouette]

I suppose my question would be why a lot of small systems would even need something like Docker. The theoretical benefits certainly would apply to various projects I work on, but the reality is that businesses at this scale often set up a standard system image and deploy it on a static set of real servers. Once that's done, the foundation might not change for months or years at a time.

There are usually two significant exceptions. One is security updates, which are typically monitored and tested/deployed via a separate process anyway. The rest is the day-to-day development work and deploying new assets, which typically needs no more than some sort of copy/clone job from the VCS to get the data to the servers and then running a single script to deploy/activate everything.

If you're working with hundreds of servers or dynamically reconfiguring things all the time in a Cloud environment, obviously the situation may be different. However, for the simpler cases -- and you can get a long way with them if you're just running a normal business and not trying to be the next unicorn -- the whole process already seems reasonably reliable and efficient anyway.

I'm a software guy rather than an operations specialist, as are the people I work with in almost all cases, so I always have some nagging doubt that we just have a total collective blind spot here. But so far, speaking only about the smaller scale and more static deployments I tend to work with, these kinds of tools seem like solutions to problems we don't often have.

[WrtCdEvrydy]

I'm a software guy too (https://github.com/WriteCodeEveryday), but I have spent an entire 3 years of my life building prototypes and software for small businesses, that just aren't technically savvy and don't have large IT departments.

Once I deployed / configured my fifth Postgres database with Rails, I decided enough was enough, I needed to move faster in my Operations setup since I'm the "ops guy". If you're in a company that has dedicated capable ops guys, you don't need a platform, but if you don't have those guys, you will need one desperately.

Flynn's decent for my use cases because those very things you say you need done -> "deploying new assets", "copy/clone job from the VCS", and "running a single script to deploy/activate everything" are wicked simple and supported right out of the box securely, so instead of handing over the SSH keys to a developer, I can give them the Flynn key and they don't get access to the underlying infrastructure, just a basic API for doing development tasks.

Additionally, the backup functionality allows me to backup a single app or a full cluster and upgrade our infrastructure as it's running.

If you've never looked into Docker, or Flynn, take this post, set aside a $60 budget for DigitalOcean and try it out, I can't guarantee it will be perfect for you, but it's perfect for me. All hail /u/_lmars and /u/titanous.

[Silhouette]

I've looked into Docker, and various other devops-style tools, in recent years. I guess I just don't see what they usefully achieve in the context I'm talking about.

I mean, for all of the projects I'm thinking of here, we already have full version control of all of our assets. We can deploy an update in about upload time plus a few seconds with a single command, and roll it back with a single command as well. Security updates are typically deployed directly from their own upstream repos, again normally with a single command after any due diligence we feel is necessary. Installing the OS and other foundation packages was more substantial in some cases, but mostly because of the various non-standard things any given project might be using in addition to the routine OS + web + DB stack, and we'd surely have to set that up regardless of whether we were making some sort of master filesystem image to clone directly or some sort of image for use in a container system. And we typically run test infrastructure identical to production in both hardware and software, with deployment to that rather than a live system requiring just a couple of simple changes to configuration.

So given the above, how would introducing an extra layer of infrastructure and a bunch more tools really help us? I'd be happy to look into these things in more detail if someone can tell me what I should be looking for and what problem it solves that we don't even realise we have, but none of the (quite a few) resources I've read/watched about them over the past several years has suggested a compelling advantage for smaller, statically hosted infrastructure. Again, the advantages seem pretty clear for people managing, say, hundreds of systems of various types that are spun up on demand and discarded when no longer useful on some sort of Cloud platform, but eliq's original question and my follow-up relate to a different sort of environment.

[WrtCdEvrydy]

Flynn's actually great for this kind of stuff. You can deploy a git repo directly and then provision your DBs (Redis, Postgres, MySQL) right from the dashboard.

[mintplant]

Doesn't Flynn require a minimum of 3 servers? What if I'm only running one?

[WrtCdEvrydy]

Recommended is 3 servers, 2 CPU cores, 2 GB of RAM.

However, single server configurations are perfectly acceptable for personal clusters.

I would strongly recommend taking a cluster backup when you get it up and running though, since single cluster configurations do not deal well with unexpected power failures.

[zerkten]

Is there a reason for this? When I see something like it makes me question what it'll be like for larger clusters.

[WrtCdEvrydy]

Because in larger clusters, the cluster can fix any issues if one hosts goes offline (load balancing) or a database gets corrupted.

In a single cluster configuration, anything going wrong can destroy your cluster's capability. Think of it as RAID, the more drives, the more you can do for high availability.

[_lmars]

Running a minimum of 3 servers is just a recommendation, you can run Flynn on a single server (many people do), but then you obviously don't benefit from the HA properties.

[WrtCdEvrydy]

Found you, Lewis Marshall. You'll never guess who I am!

[justicezyx]

Ignore the reply below, what you did has no equivalent. Unless public cloud provider automate that.

eidt: I might only see the one comment saying the benefit. That one does not bring a net gain for OP's use case. Managing any of the mentioned platform is hugely more complicated then ssh + git clone.

[jacques_chester]

If you have something that works and you don't need to manage hundreds or thousands of applications in a uniform way, I'd stay with what you trust.

Edit: Though as PaulRobinson points out, before thinking about a PaaS you ought to think about CI/CD.

I mean I think Cloud Foundry is the bee's dancing knees, but for a single app it's probably massive overkill.