3 ms·
If you have a fully-functioning "best practices" Kubernetes environment, each of the following topics ends up with its own full-depth tech: - Compute - Deploy
by MPSimmons 4y ago
If you have a fully-functioning "best practices" Kubernetes environment, each of the following topics ends up with its own full-depth tech:
- Compute
- Deployment
- CI
- Networking
- Storage
- Policies
Imagine running a microservices solution without an orchestration solution - how many people would it take to administer the servers, the storage, the network, the policies, etc. And with Kubernetes, you get maybe a couple of teams if you're lucky. This is the power and the leverage of the platform.
But also, imagine in that environment, how many things can go wrong, and the amount of expertise that you need to properly debug them. You still need that amount of expertise, because all of that complexity is still in place (or at least most of it is) - if your physical disks are throwing errors, you need someone who knows how to debug and replace that. Not hard. But then you have Ceph above that, and Rook above that (or whatever storage solution you use). And then you've got the deployment that has to make the PVC successfully. And it's like that for everything. Every problem has the potential to be a full stack problem for any one of half a dozen stacks.
It's a lot.
- iso1631 4y agoMy team looks after 150 servers from Singapore to LA, about half physical, half virtual, some which just sit on shelves between jobs. Being pesamistic takes about 100 hours a year of feeding, upgrading, etc, about $6k a year.
- throwaway894345 4y agoThat's comparing steady state with bootstrapping a Kubernetes environment. I suspect steady state Kubernetes is comparable.