How does docker replace cloudformation? Don't you still need something that says "hey you are running out of capacity soon, time to add more hardware for your software to run on"

There has to be something that adds more bare-metal for your docker containers to run on when the existing bare-metal reaches capacity, right?

A fully containerized setup allows one to use something like Kubernetes to do such orchestration.

K8s is getting pretty easy to setup these days.

I was asking about once your bare metal capacity reaches its limit. At some point you need to provision more bare metal and expand the total resources kubernetes can consume with docker.

Cloudformation, to me at least, is the power to expand resources for large traffic events. Most of the time you can get by with a small amount of instances but its nice when it scales up to hundreds of instances in minutes.

The bare metal equivalent would be to buy something that can handle the peak load from the start, right?

>Cloudformation, to me at least, is the power to expand resources for large traffic events. Most of the time you can get by with a small amount of instances but its nice when it scales up to hundreds of instances in minutes.

This is not what CloudFormation does. CloudFormation allows a declarative way to express a group of AWS resources to be created and coupled together. There's nothing that's quite exactly the same as CloudFormation, but stock Kubernetes is quite close, since you effectively describe what resources you want in individual declarative YAML/JSON files. However, there's nothing standard in Kubernetes for coupling them together into one thing equivalent to a Stack in CloudFormation.

Maybe we are talking about different things, but I use CloudFormation to autoscale ec2 instances based on avg CPU load over a period of time

http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AWSCloudFormation/latest/UserGuid...

How do open source solutions like minio.io on bare metal compare to s3? I don't have much experience with any of those, but it seems like a compatible solution.

I haven't tried it either... but the nice thing with S3 is zero maintenance. A disk or machine dies it's not my problem.

The not-my-problem aspect is really powerful.

I rent a dedi arm box from scaleway. It's been up for 700 days, and serves about 30k req/month. I couldn't be happier for the price.

For 30k req/month heroku could a better choice. The cost here is maintenance and backup.

Note: I'm still hopeful that things like k8n will make running stateful containers on random metal easy without huge investments in configuration for backup and reliability.

curious - but how would heroku be a win? I know nothing of heroku, so not insulting it.

I pay about $3.50/mo total to run these services.

b2 is a really good alternative to s3.

I assume you mean: backblaze.com/b2

I would be concerned with how good the connection is... Ie. if you use packet or scaleway, how stable/fast is the connection to b2.

S3 being internal network at EC2 is a killer feature too :)