4 ms·

I'm curious why the author used AKS. From my experience, I noticed that is the slowest to provision. I have personally experienced etcd nodes becoming unhealthy

• outside1234 7y ago
  AKS is certainly way better than Amazon's EKS offering - and while AKS was a bit unstable at the beginning, lately it has been very solid for me (I run a workload in production on it).
• yebyen 7y ago
  I don't know when your testing occurred, but I heard that long ago, AKS was very slow to provision and that it had gotten better. I have one AKS cluster that is pretty lightweight, does not get torn down or re-provisioned often (so I wouldn't notice that) and I've never noticed issues with etcd health faults. Just an anecdote to counter your anecdote, I know that the plural of anecdote isn't data...
• btai 7y ago
  Running AKS from even late 2018 is completely different than running it now. They have been making strides in provisioning and it is more than stable enough to run AKS clusters in production. Provisioning an AKS cluster in Nov 2018 would sometimes take up to 45minutes/1hour or end up in an error'd state. By the time Kubecon rolled around (a month later, Dec 2018) AKS clusters were taking between 4~6 minutes to provision on average. Compared to EKS, it is definitely a more automated way of provisioning a K8s cluster (workers provisioned for you) and definitely takes less time to provision (EKS takes roughly 12~15min).