[jdw64]

I think people are using different meanings of “production environment.”

I agree with gear54us and upvoted their comment, but I also understand what the author of the root comment is saying.

I have also delivered systems using Docker Compose that are actually running in production. The point I want to make is that people may define “production” differently depending on the number of active users, operational requirements, and risk level.

To me, this debate feels similar to the broader monolith vs. microservices debate.

[bdangubic]

"Not just for my own projects but for $500 million dollar companies and more."

Seems reasonable to assume these are serious production environments, no?!

[Cpoll]

Not necessarily. When you get to those numbers you're seeing dozens of teams with their own silos and deployment methods. So they might be responsible for the core business that's running 30 nodes and serving 100MM users a day, or they might be working on some internal portal or a WordPress site.

[nickjj]

When I mentioned that, it was for a company that got acquired by a bigger company. I can't give specifics with revenue / profits but it is a 10+ year old online SAAS business and all of their web apps are being served by Docker Compose with a non-trivial amount of direct customer facing traffic.

Lots of data, caching, web apps, background workers and lots of various API integrations. No fancy React front-end, no fancy crazy system architectures. Just a typical LAMP stack but running in Docker Compose, cranking away serving value to customers with very good uptime and a very low cloud cost relative to revenue. With that said, a managed database was involved but all of the web traffic was served by apps running through Docker Compose with a simple git push model of deployment that handled thousands of deployments over the years without much fuss.

[nonameiguess]

That as well as different definitions of scale. I've done small bits of consulting work for a research company for the past four years, deploying and managing Kubernetes clusters for them as well as helping get some of the main applications up on it. This is all internal tooling, though. Their customer-facing sites are just Drupal instances running on bare EC2.

Internally, though, they wanted to self-host a chat server, Apache airflow, Overleaf for collaborative editing of research proposals, three separate Git servers, a container registry, many other things, all with extremely strict multi-tenancy isolation requirements for storage and networking because they're handling customer data and their own customers audit them for it. That was a hell of a lot easier to do with Kubernetes than trying to figure out some giant universe of barely related technologies with vastly different APIs, having to buy specialized appliances for network and storage that probably also need their own control plane software hosted somewhere else.

But if you just look at "scale" as number of http requests a particular URL gets per some unit of time, the customer-facing sites have far greater scale. If you're trying to attribute revenue, beats me. They wouldn't sell anything without the customer-facing sites, but they wouldn't have anything to sell without the internal tooling. Solo web devs get into this tunnel vision view of ops because, to them, often the web site is the product. That's not the case for most businesses.

And, of course, they'd probably just use someone else's SaaS for tooling. But if you're in a heavily regulated space where that isn't possible and you have to self-host most of your business systems, then what?