4 ms·
I feel like your post describes exactly what Kubernetes and container images would bring to your infra. If you were to deploy a solution like you described, yo
by Longwelwind 6y ago
I feel like your post describes exactly what Kubernetes and container images would bring to your infra.
If you were to deploy a solution like you described, you would get something more complex than simply running Kubernetes, except worse. I suspect that you believe your solution would be simpler only because you are more comfortable with those technologies than with k8s. The more I read criticism of k8s, the more I'm persuaded that what people calls "old boring technologies" truly is "technologies I'm comfortable with".
On top of that, you'd need to separately document everything you do on your infra. The advantage of Docker images over AMI is that you have a file that describes how the image was built. With an AMI, you would need to hope that the guy who created the AMI documented it somewhere (or hope that he has not quit). Same goes for k8s, where configurations are committed into your repository.
At the end of the day, k8s stays a tool that you should use only when needed (and also if you have the capabilities of using it), but I think you shouldn't discard it simply because you are capable of producing the same result by other means. You get a lot more by using k8s, in my opinion.
- jen20 6y ago> The advantage of Docker images over AMI is that you have a file that describes how the image was built. https://packer.io https://packer.io - how is this even a discussion? > the more I'm persuaded that what people calls "old boring technologies" truly is "technologies I'm comfortable with". My infrastructure runs in Nomad on bare metal. I am by no means opposed to “progress”, I just don’t think Kubernetes is the be-all-and-end-all of infrastructure and would like to have a less hysterical debate about it than the parent to my original post presented.