3 ms·
In my experience, Kubernetes can be straightforward if: 1. You read the O'Reilly book first (or another good book). There are a few unexpected abstractions (re
by ekidd 4y ago
In my experience, Kubernetes can be straightforward if:
1. You read the O'Reilly book first (or another good book). There are a few unexpected abstractions (replicas, services, deployments, etc) which the book explains nicely.
2. You pay for a hosted Kubernetes. Google's is great. EKS is workable, but you may need to spend more time configuring it.
3. You don't mess with the networking system, and nothing goes horribly wrong.
Our clusters peak out at close to 400 CPUs, and Kubernetes generally does what it says it will do.
One caveat: If your app can be deployed using a "platform as a service" (Heroku, Render, etc), that's usually a better idea than Kubernetes. Kubernetes makes sense when a PaaS starts feeling too limited.
- bluehatbrit 4y agoOn the PaaS front, I've also found that for smaller applications / new startups the pricing between starting with k8s or starting with a PaaS are pretty similar.
- oneplane 4y agoDefinitely. Works for FaaS too up to some extent (especially if you need hot-standby/zero-latency startup). Problem is mostly that once you scale beyond the "look it says hello world" levels the price goes up so fast you can essentially pay someone to "make it cheaper by running it elsewhere" and still be better off. Most questions seem to revolve around a tiny part of the puzzle, or a small "just starting out" phase and completely forgets about the lifecycle of the business process that it is built for, and the existing systems it needs to interact with. Even a startup will have that problem considering most are trying to get bought which essentially means being absorbed into a legacy company. So even starting out with no legacy to worry about is just a stay of execution.