It depends on what you're optimizing for: control, simplicity, cost, or operational overhead. Go's ability to compile into a single static binary makes it unusually flexible, so all of these options are viable.
Here's how they compare.
| Option | Best for | Pros | Cons |
|---|
Static binary + systemd | VPS, internal services | Extremely simple, low memory, no containers | You manage updates, SSL, scaling, monitoring |
| Docker | Consistent deployments | Portable, reproducible, ecosystem support | Adds container complexity |
| Fly.io | Small apps needing global deployment | Easy deploys, built-in networking, runs close to users | Platform-specific concepts, pricing can grow |
| Railway | MVPs and side projects | Very fast setup, managed infrastructure | Less control, platform limits |
| Kubernetes | Large production systems | Autoscaling, resilience, orchestration | Significant operational complexity |
Static binary + systemd
One of Go's biggest strengths is producing a single executable.
Typical deployment:
go build -o myservice
scp myservice server:/opt/myservice/
systemd
├── starts service
├── restarts on crash
└── starts on boot
A simple service file:
[Unit]
Description=My Go API
[Service]
ExecStart=/opt/myservice/myservice
Restart=always
User=myuser
Environment=PORT=8080
[Install]
WantedBy=multi-user.target
Advantages:
- almost no moving parts
- very fast startup
- minimal RAM usage
- excellent for APIs and internal tools
For many companies, this is still a perfectly respectable production deployment.
Docker
Instead of copying the binary directly, package it into an image.
Typical multi-stage Dockerfile:
FROM golang:1.25 AS build
WORKDIR /app
COPY . .
RUN CGO_ENABLED=0 go build -o server .
FROM scratch
COPY --from=build /app/server /server
ENTRYPOINT ["/server"]
Benefits:
- identical environments everywhere
- integrates well with CI/CD
- easy deployment to most cloud providers
- portable across clouds
Docker becomes particularly valuable if you have multiple services or team members working across different environments.
Fly.io
Fly.io is a good fit if you want infrastructure without managing servers.
Pros:
- deploy with one command
- global regions
- built-in HTTPS
- persistent volumes available
- supports Docker or buildpacks
Good for:
- APIs
- hobby projects
- startups
- latency-sensitive applications
Railway
Railway prioritizes developer experience.
Pros:
- GitHub integration
- automatic deployments
- databases available with minimal setup
- straightforward dashboard
Ideal when you want to focus on building features rather than operating infrastructure.
Which should you choose?
Personal projects
Small production API
- Docker on a VPS
- or Fly.io
Single VPS
- Static binary +
systemd is often enough.
Growing SaaS
- Docker
- Reverse proxy (such as Nginx or Caddy)
- CI/CD
- Managed PostgreSQL
Larger organization
- Docker
- Kubernetes or another orchestrator
- Observability stack (metrics, logs, tracing)
A common production setup
Many Go services in production use a straightforward architecture:
GitHub
│
CI builds Docker image
│
Container registry
│
Server
├── Docker
├── Reverse proxy (Nginx/Caddy)
└── Go API
Or, for a simpler setup:
GitHub Actions
│
scp binary
│
systemctl restart myservice
This approach can be very reliable because Go binaries are self-contained and start quickly.
Recommendation
- If you're learning or building a side project, Fly.io or Railway provide the fastest path to deployment with minimal operational work.
- If you're deploying to your own VPS and want simplicity and low overhead, a static Go binary managed by
systemd is hard to beat.
- If you expect to move between providers, run multiple services, or build a more mature deployment pipeline, Docker offers a good balance of portability and operational consistency.
