alt Hacker NewsI’m very sympathetic and understand that decisions are easy to criticize in hindsight but leaving your database in GCP while moving everything else to your own data centres seems so backwards I can’t even begin to imagine how that could happen. Was this really an intentional design decision?
Replies
> decisions are easy to criticize in hindsight
I mean, the pain we have caused our customer ultimately proves you correct. That said, we made our decisions with the information and constraints that we knew in that moment in time. Railway has hosts in AWS/GCP/and co-los, so coordinating those workloads in a fully distributed manner would be ideal but end of the day, we didn't forsee that would just have our project get deleted just like that.
(Even if we did get assurances from them in 2024, that it wouldn't happen again, although we just got auto-rate limited the last time.)
this is easily explained by "database migrations are incredibly difficult and very risky"
I have exactly the same architecture. You can easily administer a postgres/mysql on your own infrastructure, but it's also the one thing where backups and availability are super strict. I can easily support multi-region in Google Cloud or AWS and that's way harder to do on-prem, and it's also hard to handle the replication story as safely as with Google Cloud. The hope is that GCP et al. give you safety and availability for the control plane stuff and you can run your data plane on-prem.
At $2m/mo spend, this kind of thing is insane. GCP has never been the most reliable of clouds but this is pretty awful. I would never have expected this.