4 ms·

Depends on the scale. If I only have 10 containers to manage I'd throw them on a m4 and let it be. Benefit of using k8s kicks in when your use case gets complic

Depends on the scale. If I only have 10 containers to manage I'd throw them on a m4 and let it be. Benefit of using k8s kicks in when your use case gets complicated.

hasperdi 8y ago
What's m4?
- leetrout 8y ago
  AWS instance type. "M4 instances provide a balance of compute, memory, and network resources, and it is a good choice for many applications." https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/ https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/
- lostapathy 8y ago
  AWS ec2 instance type
- palunon 8y ago
  I guess they're taking about the AWS EC2 instance type https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/ https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/
- enigmango 8y ago
  Probably the AWS m4 instance type, meant for general purpose workloads (and replaced with the m5 instance type about a year ago). https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/m5/ https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/m5/
- Znafon 8y ago
  GP probably references an AWS EC2 machine type: https://aws.amazon.com/fr/ec2/instance-types/ https://aws.amazon.com/fr/ec2/instance-types/
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- cbluth 8y ago
  Its the bigger brother of m3.
mohaine 8y ago
This. At some point you get tried of trying to find an underutilized box to launch a new service. This is when you should start looking for something more complicated.
- spookthesunset 8y ago
  > This. At some point you get tried of trying to find an underutilized box to launch a new service. This is when you should start looking for something more complicated. But that is the point of containers. To abstract away the need to worry about "finding underutilized boxes". The second you said "find an underutilized box" my mind went immediately to a pile of what I call "special snowflake" boxes. Each one is it's own unique thing. Symptoms usually include having cute names for each server instead of random, machine generated names. That shit is hard and expensive to maintain--especially in a fault tolerant way. The best way to treat your infrastructure is to make it as ephemeral as possible. Absolutely any part of it should be able to go out of commission at any time and a new instance should go online to replace it. If you are loading up multiple things onto a single m4 instance, I'm gonna say right now you are using AWS wrong....
  - mohaine 8y ago
    That should have been: At some point you get tried of trying to find an underutilized box to launch a new docker container. At this point any service should just be a docker container but you still have to find a home with enough memory, cpu, and temp space to run the container.
philwelch 8y ago
Perhaps three parallel m4's distributed across availability zones with identical sets of containers deployed to them, but yes.
kayoone 8y ago
even m4/m5's are already on the expensive side compared to something like hetzner especially if you don't need crazy peak scaling.

Depends on the scale. If I only have 10 containers to manage I'd throw them on a m4 and let it be. Benefit of using k8s kicks in when your use case gets complicated.

hasperdi 8y ago

What's m4?

leetrout 8y ago
AWS instance type. "M4 instances provide a balance of compute, memory, and network resources, and it is a good choice for many applications." https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/ https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/
lostapathy 8y ago
AWS ec2 instance type
palunon 8y ago
I guess they're taking about the AWS EC2 instance type https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/ https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/
enigmango 8y ago
Probably the AWS m4 instance type, meant for general purpose workloads (and replaced with the m5 instance type about a year ago). https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/m5/ https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/m5/
Znafon 8y ago
GP probably references an AWS EC2 machine type: https://aws.amazon.com/fr/ec2/instance-types/ https://aws.amazon.com/fr/ec2/instance-types/
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
cbluth 8y ago
Its the bigger brother of m3.

mohaine 8y ago

This. At some point you get tried of trying to find an underutilized box to launch a new service. This is when you should start looking for something more complicated.

spookthesunset 8y ago
> This. At some point you get tried of trying to find an underutilized box to launch a new service. This is when you should start looking for something more complicated. But that is the point of containers. To abstract away the need to worry about "finding underutilized boxes". The second you said "find an underutilized box" my mind went immediately to a pile of what I call "special snowflake" boxes. Each one is it's own unique thing. Symptoms usually include having cute names for each server instead of random, machine generated names. That shit is hard and expensive to maintain--especially in a fault tolerant way. The best way to treat your infrastructure is to make it as ephemeral as possible. Absolutely any part of it should be able to go out of commission at any time and a new instance should go online to replace it. If you are loading up multiple things onto a single m4 instance, I'm gonna say right now you are using AWS wrong....
- mohaine 8y ago
  That should have been: At some point you get tried of trying to find an underutilized box to launch a new docker container. At this point any service should just be a docker container but you still have to find a home with enough memory, cpu, and temp space to run the container.

philwelch 8y ago

Perhaps three parallel m4's distributed across availability zones with identical sets of containers deployed to them, but yes.

kayoone 8y ago

even m4/m5's are already on the expensive side compared to something like hetzner especially if you don't need crazy peak scaling.