Ubicloud Blog

The cost improvements are great. If you miss the automation that AWS does for database servers consider using something like https://www.ubicloud.com/ that is great for PostgreSQL servers. On bare metal these typically also support 5x the number of IOPS without paying through the nose.

Looks pretty awesome! Especially the native joins between warehouse tables and the OLTP db. Will pricing likely just be a percent markup over the (excellent) Ubicloud prices they have listed? (https://www.ubicloud.com/docs/about/pricing)

We’ve been seeing the same trend. Lots of teams moving to Hetzner for the price/performance, but then realizing they have to rebuild all the Postgres ops pieces (backups, failover, monitoring, etc.). We ended up building a managed Postgres that runs directly on Hetzner. Same setup, but with HA, backups, and PITR handled for you. It’s open-source, runs close to the metal, and avoids the egress/I/O gotchas you get on AWS. If anyone’s curious, I added here are some notes about our take [1], [2]. Always happy to talk about it if you have any questions. [1] https://www.ubicloud.com/blog/difference-between-running-postgres-for-… [2] https://www.ubicloud.com/use-cases/postgresql

Surprised to not see Ubicloud in there, which provides cloud services on top of various (including European) infra providers. https://www.ubicloud.com/

Amazing article! Using state machines is a must if you are building infrastructure control-planes. Was P a must, though? I am not sure. We have been building infrastructure control-planes for over 13 years now and every iteration we have built with Ruby. It worked wonders for us https://www.ubicloud.com/blog/building-infrastructure-control-planes-i…

Yeah Hetzner doesn't have dedicated in the US, and not sure if it will in near/mid future. Still, Hetzner cloud is pretty good option, and there's more support coming on building on Hetzner. https://www.ubicloud.com/ (from founders of citus) is mainly/currently targeting hetzner, for example.

This looks amazing, well done. The pricing is very reasonable. (1) Seriously considering switching to this from my homebrew setup. Extension support (pg vector) would be great. (1) Looking at https://www.ubicloud.com/docs/about/pricing but your pricing on the landing page is almost 3 times higher https://www.ubicloud.com/use-cases/postgresql

Looks great. It would be useful to have a wiki page about the Elastic V2 license. e.g https://www.elastic.co/licensing/elastic-license/faq FYI the first link to your license is broken on this page: https://www.ubicloud.com/docs/about/terms-of-service

(Disclaimer: I'm a cofounder at Ubicloud.) Hey there, we offer Ubicloud Runners that are 10x cheaper than GitHub and bill them by the minute. You get a fresh VM with each job; and we use Hetzner as our underlying provider. If you're already setting up a Hetzner box, I'd love to get your input. Any thoughts or feedback for us? https://www.ubicloud.com/use-cases/github-actions https://github.com/ubicloud/ubicloud/blob/main/routes/web/webhook/gith… (our github actions integration is also openly available)

Pretty terrible look, given you're lying already with this "We don't claim to be "open source" rather we are open and free as in you can see the code and host it yourself if you want. " From https://ubicloud.com/ At top: "An open source cloud that can run anywhere." Near bottom: "Open-source or managed for you" Image at bottom: https://unicorn-cdn.b-cdn.net/0c2bf736-3f08-4b11-a500-57e4e7b331b2/ope… At least Openstack doesn't lie about its complexity.

> Taken from here: https://ubicloud.com/ Am I the only one getting a certificate error browsing there?

Yes. > ... An open source cloud that can run anywhere. > ... Open-source or managed for you. Available on GitHub under the Elastic v2 license. Taken from here: https://ubicloud.com/

How do they compare to Ubicloud? https://www.ubicloud.com/

Similar to https://www.ubicloud.com/ ?

Half the price of https://www.ubicloud.com/use-cases/postgresql?

One challenge is that they have a ton of usage under their free tier, especially by free and open source projects which have near zero budgets. Its an artificial economy of projects that cannot pay for their own usage. Another challenge is that the GitHub Actions paid tier is already very expensive, the quality of service is poor, and they have major security challenges. They could load shed by raising prices, driving customers to other platforms, but they already charge 10x what others charge (https://runs-on.com/pricing/#runner-pricing, https://www.ubicloud.com/docs/about/pricing). Anyone using GitHub Actions at scale would be somewhat price insensitive already.

404 Page not Found Looking at the blog main page, I think this may have moved to https://www.ubicloud.com/blog/hardware-touch-stronger-ssh

Updated URL is https://www.ubicloud.com/blog/hardware-touch-stronger-ssh

The riskiest line in your repo isn’t in "src/", it’s in ".github/workflows/" Self-hosted runners feel more secure at first since they execute jobs directly on machines you manage. But they introduce new attack surfaces, and managing them securely and reliably is hard. At Ubicloud, we built managed GitHub Actions runners with security as the top priority. We provision clean, ephemeral VMs for each job, and they're fully isolated using Linux KVM. All communication and disks are encrypted. They’re fully compatible with default GitHub runners and require just a one-line change to adopt. Bonus: they’re 10× more cost-effective. https://www.ubicloud.com/use-cases/github-actions

I found this article on their IAM/ABAC service interesting: https://www.ubicloud.com/docs/architecture/attribute-based-access-cont… I always wonder how the big cloud providers manage to scale their IAM services (from a distributed systems perspective) given they presumably need both low latency and some reasonable level of consistency. Anyone have any pointers to architectural descriptions/publications?

There's quite a few places around. Also Ubicloud look interesting, though I've not personally used them: https://www.ubicloud.com/use-cases/postgresql

That's wonderful news, thank you very much for switching to an actually open license! The linked page at https://www.ubicloud.com/docs/github-actions-integration/quickstart still says "Source open under the Elastic V2 license", and https://www.ubicloud.com/docs/about/pricing still says "it's open and free under the Elastic V2 license". Not sure if those were missed or if the docs just need some time to refresh from their sources.

Congrats on the launch, certainly good to see competition. I was reading https://www.ubicloud.com/blog/ubicloud-hosted-arm-runners-100x-better-… but seems like a bit misleading to compare an ARM workload over QEMU vs a native ARM. What about native x86 vs native x86 or at least native x86 vs native arm?

He raises some fair points, I find it odd how actions/checkout has to raise its version number when it drops support for older node versions, a package manager type of system could account for compatible node versions There is competition at least. https://www.ubicloud.com/use-cases/github-actions fights on perf/price, but gets stuck being compatible But I'm annoyed too by things like the pain involved to have docker let rust builds use a volume to cache build artifacts. cargo-chef is a hack Ideally I could have docker images as dependencies building with actions sharing images between each other. Not sure why actions can't form a DAG of inputs/outputs

Thank you, where is pricing and details about block storage, another offering you list in your docs? https://www.ubicloud.com/docs

nice. big diff seems to be cost. Could be useful for analytics workloads, i.e. read replicas. https://www.ubicloud.com/docs/managed-postgresql/price-performance Would be nice to see copy-and-paste instructions for setting up read replicas from RDS etc.

They seem to do PITR [1], not sure about other features. The docs and particularly the Postgres section of it seem very thin. 1: https://www.ubicloud.com/docs/managed-postgresql/backup-and-restore

> One counter-intuitive thing we found is that it's slow to save and restore caches, but the machines have good CPU, so for us it's been faster to disable cache entirely and just redo everything on each build. The link to SPDK was very interesting: https://www.ubicloud.com/blog/building-block-storage-for-cloud-with-sp… I use filesystems for very high performance applications, and I've found ZFS to often be the limiting factor when compared to simpler solutions of XFS +- mdadm +- encryption. It's a controversial point, but others have made similar findings: https://klarasystems.com/articles/virtualization-showdown-freebsd-bhyv… : "Although I suspect this will surprise many readers, it didn’t surprise me personally—I’ve been testing guest storage performance for OpenZFS and Linux KVM for more than a decade, and zvols have performed poorly by comparison each time I’ve tested them" OpenZFS seems to be starting to consider optimizations to better perform on modern drivers (SSD, NVMe) which have very different performance profiles to what ZFS was built for (spinning rust) In the SPDK summary they say "To make VM provisioning times go faster, we changed our host OS from ext4 to btrfs" (...) "Also, when we switched the host filesystem to btrfs, our disk performance degraded notably. Our disk throughput dropped to about one-third of what it was with ext4." Ubicloud: the problem seems to be generic to CoW filesystems, and it's interesting you came…