And yes, adding a Redis cluster is fine, it is just another moving part to manage. But given that the alternative is made out of unobtainium, I guess that is just the way of it :-)

I've found myself wanting this on several occasions too. I.e. wanting all my rust backend processes (k8s pods) to have some minimal shared state, without having to spin up a Redis cluster. I've talked to Claude about it a couple of times, and it descends into something like, "you gotta use Raft or CRDTs, and pick 2 out of 3 from CAP". Which honestly seems pretty fair, and indicates to me that I'm dreaming for something magical.

Nonetheless, it is nice to hear someone else asking for this. If this is indeed feasible (even if simple/limited), then I'd be interested to try it.

I hope this isn’t the case. It is the route I took, but it also doesn’t seem to be a likely route going forward. Strong CS grounding is feasible for sure, but I have a hard time believing that a meaningful number of people will be spending the requisite years coding manually.

But this doesn't seem to make sense when someone comes to a topic with an LLM in-hand. They need to know high-level techniques, architecture, best practice, etc. As they pursue the topic they start to get down into the details, although probably never learn to do it fully independently.

I quite like this view because it paints a somewhat optimistic way forward from where we are now.

Shameless plug: We started our company[0] on this basis, i.e. managed Kubernetes on bare metal in EU DCs. We run everything on open source tooling, provide DevOps engineering time to our customers' engineering teams, take on the migration risk ourselves, and offer response-time SLAs. So yes I'm biased, but I did this because I do actually really believe in this approach.

So I'd flip it around. Perhaps building a sovereign hyperscaler is the wrong approach. I'd say we need workloads that aren't welded to any one provider in the first place. And open source tools have come a very long way since EC2 first came online.

[0] - https://lithus.eu/

I'd teach someone to drive it and say, "now push down on the clutch". They they would heave and struggle, then eventually succeed and look victorious. I'd say, "well done, it is now half way down! But that's all you need for now!"

EDIT: To fully explain: It has a two-stage clutch. You half-press it and it disconnects the wheels from the engine. If you fully depress it all the way to the floor, it additionally disconnects the power-take-off shaft (PTO) from the engine. The PTO shaft is a spindle on the back of the tractor which drives things like your flail mower, wood chipper, etc.

EDIT 2: Edit 1 was for the general audience, not the parent commenter ;-)

And there was no fancy technology in it at all. If I was in the forest and had forgotten the key, I'd just reach behind the dashboard and hot-wire it. The air filter was basically a shisha-pipe that bubbled the incoming air through wire wool and engine oil.

Its fuel gauge didn't work either. You just had to take a look in the tank, or quickly react as soon as the revs started dropping. I ran it dry a few times and had to sit there with a spanner in one hand and YouTube into the other, while trying to bleed all the fuel lines. But they were all on the outside of the vehicle, which made it comparatively easy I imagine.

I've never actually driven a modern tractor, so don't know how it compares. I imagine the clutch is easier on the knees these days!

Anyway, this just felt like the place to share this.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massey_Ferguson_135

For backups we use both Velero and application-level backup for critical workloads (i.e. Postgres WAL backups for PITR). We also ensure all state is on at least two nodes for HA.

We also find bare metal to be a lot more performant in general. Compared to AWS we typically see service response times halve. It is not that virtualisation inherently has that much overhead, rather it is everything else. Eg, bare metal offers:

- Reduced disk latency (NVMe vs network block storage)

- Reduced network latency (we run dedicated fibre, so inter-az is about 1/10th the latency)

- Less cache contention, etc [1]

Anyway, if you want to chat about this sometime just ping me an email: adam@ company domain.

[0] https://lithus.eu

[1] I wrote more on this 6 months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45615867

If you're interested I'll see about getting the PR created sooner rather than later.

The down side is that the starting price is kinda high, so the math probably only works out if you also have a number of other workloads to run on the same cluster. Or if you need to run a really huge Forgejo server!

I suspect my comment history will provide the best details and overview of what we do. We'll be offering the Firecracker runner back to the Forgejo community very soon in any case.

https://lithus.eu

It has been a pretty smooth process. Although we have done a couple of pieces of custom development:

1) We've created a Firecracker-based runner, which will run CI jobs in Firecracker VMs. This brings the Foregjo Actions running experience much more closely into line with GitHub's environment (VM, rather than container). We hope to contribute this back shortly, but also drop me a message if this is of interest.

2) We're working up a proposal[1] to add environments and variable groups to Forgejo Actions. This is something we expect to need for some upcoming compliance requirements.

I really like Forgejo as a project, and I've found the community to be very welcoming. I'm really hoping to see it grow and flourish :D

[0]: https://lithus.eu, adam@

[1]: https://codeberg.org/forgejo/discussions/issues/440

PS. We are also looking at offering this as a managed service to our clients.

We're not really that kind of product company; we're more of a services company. What we do is deploy Kubernetes clusters onto bare metal servers. That's the core technical offering. However, everything beyond that is somewhat per-client. Some clients need a lot of compute. Some clients need a custom object storage cluster. Some clients need a lot of high-speed internal networking. Which is why we prefer to have a call to figure out specifically what your needs are. But I can also see how this isn't necessarily satisfying if you're used to just grabbing the API docs and having a look around.

What we will do is take your company's software stack and migrate it off AWS/Azure/Google and deploy it onto our new infrastructure. We will then become (or work with) your DevOps team to supporting you. This can be anything from containerising workloads to diagnosing performance issues to deploying a new multi-region Postgres cluster. Whatever you need done on your hardware that we feel we can reasonably support. We are the ones on-call should NATS fall over at 4am.

Your team also has full access to the Kubernetes cluster to deploy to as you wish.

I think the pricing page is the most concrete thing on our website, and it is entirely accurate. If you were to phone us and say, "I want that exact hardware," we would do it for you. But the real value we also offer is in the DevOps support we provide, actually doing the migration up-front (at our own cost), and being there working with your team every week.