I don't have to maintain state on GCP persistent disks. I can blow away a server without warning, and I'll only lose a few seconds of data.
True, I have to maintain state on S3, but there's not much work involved in that.
If I was maintaining my own database server, I have to manage upgrades, backups, and the complexity of running an additional server. With Litestream, I don't have to manage upgrades because nothing bad happens if I don't upgrade, whereas there are security risks running an unpatched MySQL/Postgres server in production. Litestream has built-in snapshots and can replicate to multiple S3 backends, so I'm not too worried about backups. And there's no server to maintain.
What operational complexity do you see in Litestream?
SQLite is really great. By using it, you don't have to install and maintain another service, and you don't have to think about things like network security. From that point of view, that's clearly simpler.
But it also introduces a few challenges. It's not as easy to connect to your database remotely to inspect it, with something like SequelPro for MySQL. It's not possible to create an index or drop a column without blocking all writes, which can be annoying if your database is large. Database migrations in general are harder with SQLite because ALTER TABLE is limited. [1]
One last thing regarding losing the few seconds of data. If you use something like Google Cloud Regional Persistent Disk, then your data are replicated synchronously in two different data centers, which means you can lose your server, restart another one, and not lose any data. Can still be combined with Litestream for backup to S3 with point-in-time restores.
yeah, this is the more sane approach. Just use Google's replication/durability, and export to S3 when you want/need to change vendors. In this case, you wouldn't even need lightstream. Just SQLite.
If you can lose the last few seconds then yes that's fine. But for most applications I've been working on, we didn't have that flexibility (committed means durable).
I don't see any operational complexity with Litestream.io. I think that's an awesome tool. But it's not that different of managing PostgreSQL backups with something like WAL-E.
The complexity of managing your own database server only exists if you don't use a managed service. Then there is no server to maintain and they do all the things you mentioned for you.
True, I have to maintain state on S3, but there's not much work involved in that.
If I was maintaining my own database server, I have to manage upgrades, backups, and the complexity of running an additional server. With Litestream, I don't have to manage upgrades because nothing bad happens if I don't upgrade, whereas there are security risks running an unpatched MySQL/Postgres server in production. Litestream has built-in snapshots and can replicate to multiple S3 backends, so I'm not too worried about backups. And there's no server to maintain.
What operational complexity do you see in Litestream?