What stops you from using a managed database from a provider who specializes in it?
If Fly builds it, it will create another Goliath who tries to eat everything.
If Fly builds it, it will create another Goliath who tries to eat everything.
A lack of integrated security and authorization? Should be solvable though.
The expense of external traffic? The latency to a DB in a different datacenter?
Servers sitting less than 1km to each other tend to have lesser latency between them, compared to servers that could be anywhere on the public internet.
But if you have a zero-trust architecture and everything communicates over wireguard, then technically public or private won't matter right?
Not saying public/private IPs don't matter – since almost all the servers would still only have private IPs.
In a sense this is more like VPC peering.
I remember a failure of one transatlantic line that was used for one direction of packets we were sending between EU and US. I spent a night on a phone trying to convince AWS and our other datacenter operator to work around the problem by changing their routing and to push the backbone operator to fix the problem - we didn't have any relationship with the backbone of course.
You don't want such disruption to happen in a core part of your app. These disruptions can also be intermittent and "random" and you have no way to fix.
I think I know what you're getting at, and if I'm right, this isn't really a subjective or squishy subject.
The only reason I think we might not be is the selling point is less vendor lock-in, not something managed significantly better. For the most part, the major cloud providers have mature, feature rich product offerings for common use cases like DB, distributed queues, running services, load balancers, etc.
With Fly.io (at least today), this isn't as straightforward given your favorite database is likely not deployed there.
Higher database round-trip times are fixed by using database stored procedures instead of making multitudes of tiny compound SQL queries.