4 ms·

> We had lots of techniques to package and deploy things before Kubernetes, but they were complex and inadequate in some ways They worked very well for 30 year

> We had lots of techniques to package and deploy things before Kubernetes, but they were complex and inadequate in some ways They worked very well for 30 years. And the new container-based tools inevitably end up doing the same mistakes, rediscovering the same solutions and we'll go back to the beginning. > turns out Kubernetes itself is substantially more complicated to package and deploy than the old solutions Exactly, and you can't solve a problem by making it more complex.

cdoxsey 7y ago
> Exactly, and you can't solve a problem by making it more complex. Sure you can. A resource scheduler is more complex than not having one, but it solves the single-point-of-failure problem and the bin-packing CPU+memory problem. A more complex infrastructure means you can have dumber apps. And there are lots of areas where this is true: TCP is a complex protocol which makes it easier to build reliable communication, CPUs have complex caches which make simple code faster, RAID makes multiple disks behave like a single disk to improve reliability or performance, compression is very complex (esp for audio/video) but dramatically reduces the size... The implementation of kubernetes may be flawed, but the idea of kubernetes makes a lot of sense. It solves real problems.
- eeZah7Ux 7y ago
  > A resource scheduler is more complex than not having one, but it solves the single-point-of-failure problem and the bin-packing CPU+memory problem. And yet various FAANGs choose not to use a smart scheduler, because it does not improve efficiency and reliability enough to justify its complexity and scales poorly.
  - cdoxsey 7y ago
    Kubernetes was based on Google's Borg [1]. Netflix uses Titus and Mesos [2]. I'm not sure what Amazon uses, but I'm sure they have some sort of system to do this. They offer plenty of managed solutions for customers (including EKS). Apple's more of a product company, but they seem to use Kubernetes for some things [3]. And finally facebook apparently has something called Tupperware [4]. So all the FAANGs use something like Kubernetes to manage infrastructure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_(cluster_manager) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_(cluster_manager) [2] https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3158370 https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3158370 [3] https://jobs.apple.com/en-us/details/200120515/virtualized-compute-senior-kubernetes-virtualization-developer?team=SFTWR https://jobs.apple.com/en-us/details/200120515/virtualized-c... [4] https://www.slideshare.net/Docker/aravindnarayanan-facebook140613153626phpapp02-37588997 https://www.slideshare.net/Docker/aravindnarayanan-facebook1...
    - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
      I worked on some of the technologies you mentioned but I cannot disclose more. > So all the FAANGs use something like Kubernetes to manage infrastructure. No, you cannot just hand-wave that they are "like Kubernetes".

cdoxsey 7y ago

> Exactly, and you can't solve a problem by making it more complex. Sure you can. A resource scheduler is more complex than not having one, but it solves the single-point-of-failure problem and the bin-packing CPU+memory problem. A more complex infrastructure means you can have dumber apps. And there are lots of areas where this is true: TCP is a complex protocol which makes it easier to build reliable communication, CPUs have complex caches which make simple code faster, RAID makes multiple disks behave like a single disk to improve reliability or performance, compression is very complex (esp for audio/video) but dramatically reduces the size... The implementation of kubernetes may be flawed, but the idea of kubernetes makes a lot of sense. It solves real problems.

eeZah7Ux 7y ago
> A resource scheduler is more complex than not having one, but it solves the single-point-of-failure problem and the bin-packing CPU+memory problem. And yet various FAANGs choose not to use a smart scheduler, because it does not improve efficiency and reliability enough to justify its complexity and scales poorly.
- cdoxsey 7y ago
  Kubernetes was based on Google's Borg [1]. Netflix uses Titus and Mesos [2]. I'm not sure what Amazon uses, but I'm sure they have some sort of system to do this. They offer plenty of managed solutions for customers (including EKS). Apple's more of a product company, but they seem to use Kubernetes for some things [3]. And finally facebook apparently has something called Tupperware [4]. So all the FAANGs use something like Kubernetes to manage infrastructure. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_(cluster_manager) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borg_(cluster_manager) [2] https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3158370 https://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=3158370 [3] https://jobs.apple.com/en-us/details/200120515/virtualized-compute-senior-kubernetes-virtualization-developer?team=SFTWR https://jobs.apple.com/en-us/details/200120515/virtualized-c... [4] https://www.slideshare.net/Docker/aravindnarayanan-facebook140613153626phpapp02-37588997 https://www.slideshare.net/Docker/aravindnarayanan-facebook1...
  - eeZah7Ux 7y ago
    I worked on some of the technologies you mentioned but I cannot disclose more. > So all the FAANGs use something like Kubernetes to manage infrastructure. No, you cannot just hand-wave that they are "like Kubernetes".