Comment by fjni
1 day ago
Wait… railway runs on GCP? Didn’t they make a whole thing about not “building a cloud on top of another cloud?”
Or did they just mean that they’re not renting VPSs but only metal from the cloud provider?
In my mind I was so excited that there was another provider not just paying one of the hyperscalars but at a minimum colocating and owning more of their stack. https://blog.railway.com/p/heroku-walked-railway-run
from the blog linked via Wayback Machine. "From Day 1, we had this notion at the forefront.
The other notion that we have intuited is that you can’t build a cloud on another cloud. We have devoted years of practice running our own metal (and playing well with other clouds) to make sure that Railway’s business, which invariably becomes your customer’s business, is as rock solid as possible."
I'm not familiar with Railway, so this might not make any sense, but it's possible they were using their own hardware but managing it with Google accounts. It's not uncommon for a company's offsite human-to-human communications to fail when there's a Google outage or ban, so it's not unexpected to have the same interference with human-to-machine or machine-to-machine communications.
That’s strange, when I interviewed with the founder a few years ago he told me they were on AWS wanting to move to firecracker.
Yep, and this is why I'm pissed. They lied. They're completely dependent on GCP. So, I gotta do some research, i need something a little more stable (and less dependent on one company's whims) than this. This is bad for them, because it really strikes at the heart of their 'big claim,' peacefull software deployments. This is chaos.
Yea, I mean, that's the whole MO of our platform and we failed at that. So yea, that's disappointing and more so for our customers.
I can provide an explanation about the GCP dependency. Yes, we have host workloads off GCP, and we have been able to build a good business by performing a cloud exit. However, we were worried that we would have a circular dependency on our own cloud. I don't think we expected to get auto-modded out of our own account, hence we left our DB on CloudSQL.
It was never our intent to deceive people that we didn't own our own destiny with our business. The last GCP issue, we were assured that this scenario wouldn't happen (when we got auto-ratelimited, which was bad, but survivable) - but it seems like we have further work to do. Apologies.
Why CloudSQL? why not AlloyDB for stability?
I’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?
8 replies →