No it's not. Kubernetes is not an equivalent of a car, it's an equivalent of Land Rover Discovery 5 in your scenario. There are plenty of cars which score diff

No it's not. Kubernetes is not an equivalent of a car, it's an equivalent of Land Rover Discovery 5 in your scenario. There are plenty of cars which score differently on some pre-agreed reliability scale (and, specifically, this model of Land Rover scores very poorly). Kubernetes is light years away from being a reliable system. It's a system to support Web sites, which don't need to do anything that would require a lot of investment into reliability. Nobody in their right mind would use Kubernetes to run highly-reliable systems that, eg. put human lives at risk. PostgreSQL is in a completely different category from reliability standpoint: much more reliable. But, if you put it on Kubernetes footing, you give up that reliability. Again, maybe your business is to make Web sites -- then nobody cares, it's good enough. Running a database of a bank on top of Kubernetes -- well, I hope nobody actually tries that. And size has nothing to do with that. Reliability is about all sorts of metrics like mean time to failure / recovery and guarantees that the system makes like once a particular condition is encountered, the system will halt and so on. Kubernetes never claimed anything in that category, and, in practice, it doesn't offer any satisfactory guarantees of its own performance. Anecdotally, I saw Kubernetes fail due to its internal problems more times that I can count. Like, we are talking about at least hundreds of times. And by "fail" I mean that the system enters into a state that cannot be salvaged by a reboot or replacement a master node(s). Since my interaction with it involves a lot of testing, but I'm not testing Kubernetes, rather something else running on it, I'm all too used to deleting and deploying new clusters.