4 ms·
Given the choices between app->k8s->vm->metal, app->vm->metal, app->k8s->metal, or app->metal, a lot of businesses really should be choosing the ones without k8
by nitrogen 5y ago
Given the choices between app->k8s->vm->metal, app->vm->metal, app->k8s->metal, or app->metal, a lot of businesses really should be choosing the ones without k8s in the chain. Sometimes a single VM, with a hot spare ready for manual failover, is plenty.
- secondcoming 5y agoOur GCP machines that are behind a Load Balancer are all app->vm->metal. Works fine. People keep bringing up kubernetes but it adds nothing.
- pas 5y agoit's a standard like Ansible. if you already have a great configuration management / deployment tool, then you likely wouldn't gain much
- sanderjd 5y agoDisagree. I've been on both sides of those choices, and the containerized deployment infrastructure is much nicer to work with, as a software developer. And I think it is less annoying for ops folks too, but I'm less sure about that.
- nitrogen 5y agoIf ops is handling ops and you're using automated CI/CD, then all you need to do as a software developer is "git push," and it doesn't matter whether it's containers, VMs, or bare metal running the code, nor does it matter what's orchestrating the containers, VMs, or raw servers. I've also done everything from bare servers to VMs to containers, in varying capacities. For small teams with fewer than millions of users, the fewer moving parts the better. One monolithic app scaled mostly vertically, one database scaled mostly vertically, and maybe one caching layer scaled horizontally, will be far more productive for development.