CloudFoundry vs. Google Cloud Run

It's well suited if:

• The organization has large number of applications that needs to be deployed frequently.
• The organization is tied to the DevOps mindset.
• The organization has programs in different languages.
• The applications does not need EJB's support that servers like web logic provide.

It's less suited if:

• The applications needs security configuration within the same CloudFoundry instance.
• The organization, for whatever reason does not want developers to manage the instances.

Incentivized

Microservices and RestFul API application as it is fast and reliant. Seamless integration with event triggers such as pubsub or event arc, so you can easily integrate that with usecases with file uploads, database changes, etc. Basically great with short-lived tasks, if however, you have long-running processses, Cloud Run might not be idle for this. For example if you have a long running data processing task, other solutions such as kubeflow pipelines or dataflow are more suited for this kind of tasks. Cloud Run is also stateless, so if you need memory, you will have to connect an external database.

Incentivized

• Support for Orgs and Spaces that allow for managing users and deployables within a large organization.
• Easy deployment, deploying code is as simple as executing single line from CLI, thanks to build-packs.
• Solid and rich CLI, that allows for various operations on the instance.
• Isolated Virtual Machines called Droplets, that provide clean run time environment for the code. This used to be a problem with Weblogic and other application servers, where multiple applications are run on the same cluster and they share resources.
• SSH capability for the droplet (isolated VM's are called droplets), that allows for real time viewing of the App code while the application is running.
• Support for multiple languages, thanks to build-packs.
• Support for horizontal scaling, scaling an instance horizontally is a breeze.
• Support for configuring environment variable using the service bindings.
• Supports memory and disk space limit allocation for individual applications.
• Supports API's as well as workers (processes without endpoints)
• Supports blue-green deployment with minimal down time

Incentivized

• Auto scaling is the best one
• provide direct VPC connectivity and rigid network
• Cloud SQL and Pub/Sub services
• Handling latency issues

Incentivized

• Does not support stateful containers and that would be a nice to have.
• Supports showing logs, but does not persist the logs anywhere. This makes relying on Cloud Foundry's logs very unreliable. The logs have to be persisted using other third party tools like Elk and Kibana.

Incentivized

• The UI can be made simpler. Currently the UI is bloated and it takes time to find out what you want
• More integrations with container registry providers (ECR, dockerhub)
• Better permissions UX. Currently GCP requires service accounts to be used with cloud products, the experience adding/removing permissions is difficult to navigate

Incentivized

We definitely need to renew it because we dont own our own infrastructure and storage and we are happy with Cloud Run features

Incentivized

The UI/console is great... the documentation is top-notch for developers, but the CLI itself when you have to script around it is very complex and easy to forget some options... the downside of a generic command line client.

Incentivized

Not seen any major issues when we run applications its good

Incentivized

Initially we felt slow but slowly it picked up and easy to manage

Incentivized

I was involved in the initial implementation setup, Its easy with the given documentaiton we can do ourself. Not that critical

Incentivized

While Docker shines in providing support for volumes and stateful instances, Cloud foundry shines in providing support for deploying stateless services. Heroku shines in integrating with Git and using commits to git as hooks to trigger deployments right from the command line. But it does not provide on-premise solution that Cloud foundry provides.

Incentivized

AWS Lambda supports code zip package, enabling lower cold start time. Also, AWS Lambda pricing is much simpler, easier to understand.

Other than that, the 2 products are very similar, including the Docker image support: the image must be built based on proprietary base image.

Obviously, if your other services are running in GCP, then Google Cloud Run is your only choice for tight integration, & private networking.

Incentivized

Not part of purchase.

Incentivized

It has good auto scale feature and reliable also

Incentivized

We have very good support when needed

Incentivized

• Positive impact, since it simplifies the deployment time by a huge margin. Without cloud foundry, deploying a code needs coordination with infrastructure teams, while with cloud foundry, its a simple one line command. This reduces the deployment time from at least few hours to few minutes. Faster deployments promote faster dev cycle iterations.
• Code maintenance such as upgrading a Node or Java version is as simple as updating the build-pack. Without cloud foundry, using web logic, the specific version only supports a specific version of Java. So updating the version involves upgrading the version of web logic that needs to involve few teams. So without cloud foundry, it takes at least few days, with cloud foundry, its a matter of few mins.
• Overall, happier Developers and thats harder to quantify.

Incentivized

• Built in support for auto scaling helps reduce operational overhead
• Any application performance issues can be addressed quickly by allocating more resources while a proper fix can be planned and rolled out later
• Using Google Cloud Run enables development of microservices which provides granular control for scaling critical services in the platform

Incentivized