|
|
|
|
|
|
by danpalmer
761 days ago
|
|
|
I love GCP (did a migration to it at my last place), but I think like all cloud providers, it's a lot more "some assembly required" than Porter looks like, or like Heroku used to be back in the day. To my knowledge GCP doesn't have a git-push deployment. Cloud Run might be the closest thing if you do a Docker push, but that is just one part, then you need a database, still need CI/CD, etc. It's close. And while I like the look of Porter, I probably wouldn't bother and would jump straight to GCP, but I do think there are usability differences. |
|
|
> [1] By “big three clouds” we mean the lower-level primitives of each cloud provider. We don’t mean their higher level offerings like AWS App Runner, Google Cloud Run, or Azure App Service, since those run into the same PaaS problems described above.
Porter is explicitly designed to be a competitor to these services that is 1) more flexible 2) cloud-agnostic 3) more cost-effective. Many of our users come from Cloud Run because they need to customize networking settings (timeouts, websockets, etc.) or autoscaling behavior, not to mention the rather expensive cost (taking as an example a machine with 2 vCPU and 4GB RAM, Cloud Run is around 3~4x the cost of what equivalent compute would cost as a VM).