4 ms·
I think one way in which it plays out opposite to this is that Kubernetes, among companies I’ve talked to, is being deployed as EKS or GKE with cloud provider s
by tuckerman 4y ago
I think one way in which it plays out opposite to this is that Kubernetes, among companies I’ve talked to, is being deployed as EKS or GKE with cloud provider specific extensions/integrations while Nomad is much much easier to self manage on top of bare VMs. Even being owned by a single company, there is something about being to self host that feels more “free”.
Obviously this could make a 180 easily because of how much control HashiCorp has, but, thus far, they have been pretty good stewards.
- adra 4y agoWanting to turn on just one more server to find months of lead time and a bunch of red tape to get stuff done, yeah I don't miss "owning the hardware" one bit. In times of economic hardship when finding skilled labor to manage infrastructure is easier to achieve, trading hardware costs for labor costs may make more sense, but I don't see that happening in today's economies for most western economies.
- tuckerman 4y agoI think there is a quiet but noticeable push back to owning hardware for predictable workloads but that’s beside the point. You can run nomad on EC2, GCE, whatever the Azure equivalent is, in addition to bare metal you own. Setting up your own, non-managed Kubernetes cluster is definitely possible but I’d argue it’s on a whole different level of difficulty.
- kfrzcode 4y agoSingle point of failure!