Google Kubernetes Engine Reviews

We use it for all applications.

The logs are important for detecting problems in our clusters. I use the fragment with this property, which is valuable.

The current version is quite good. However, a new version, 1.26, is not yet stable. GKE offers regular, stable, and rapid versions, but this one is being used for the rapid version and hasn't been thoroughly tested yet. I think DCP may be quicker in releasing more stable versions.

I have been using Google Kubernetes Engine for two years. For SunTrust, we use version 1.21, which is old. But on ComMaster, we use version 1.24.

It is not very stable, I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

I would rate the scalability a ten out of ten. Around 30 users are using Google Kubernetes Engine in your organization.

The customer service and support team is quite good. 

Positive

We can't say the initial setup was easy, but it wasn't difficult either. The deployment process was pretty fast. 

The pricing is average. For example, Tanzu Build Service is very expensive, but generally, it's okay. However, I understand that the on-to service is very expensive.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten. 

We use this solution to run the AI models that we have developed for anomaly detection, cloud workload prediction, as well as setting up clusters.

We appreciate that it is quite easy to set up a Kubernetes cluster in Google Cloud, using the managed services within this solution.

We would like to see some improvement in the ease of integration with this solution.

We would also like to see the addition of some automated realization of data pipelines.

We have been using this solution for nearly three years.

We have found the stability of this solution to be good during our time working with it.

This is an easily scalable solution.

The setup for this solution is reasonably simple.

We implemented this solution using our team of in-house, GCP-certified architects and operators.

We would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Google Kubernetes Engine's most valuable features are microservices and its acquisition rate, which is very useful for scaling perspective.

The user interface could be improved. In the next release, I'd like to see better notifications.

I've been using Google Kubernetes Engine for a few years. 

Kubernetes is stable because it has scalable architecture, so if any part goes down, it starts from the other parts. 

Kubernetes is scalable.

The initial setup was simple.

I would rate Kubernetes' pricing four out of five.

I also evaluated VMware, which is more expensive than Kubernetes.

I would give Kubernetes a rating of eight out of ten.

I use the tool to host a SaaS application.We also provision the clusters to help students learn how to use Kubernetes.

The solution is more user-friendly than AWS or Azure. I can also easily scale out the service in the future when the number of customers grows. GKE is the leader of Kubernetes service and it can be easily updated. I love the tool's user interfaces. 

I use the Firebase tool with GKE and it would be helpful if the solution can give notifications when we reach the budget limit. 

I have been working with the solution for more than 8 years. 

The product is stable. 

The tool is scalable and we have around 3000 users for the product. 

The tech support's service is good. 

Neutral

The solution's setup is very easy. 

The solution's ROI is good. 

The solution's price is reasonable. 

I would rate the product a nine out of ten. 

The Google Kubernetes Engine is used for managing data workloads. As a part of the platform engineering team, we are uncertain about the specific data workloads running. Primarily, the application teams wanted to run specialized workflows, while the data engineering workflow preferred to opt for GKE. After a thorough evaluation of the different versions of the Kubernetes platform over a week, we informed the application teams about the available options. In case of confusion, we clarify the advantages and disadvantages of each feature. However, when the application teams express their preference for GKE, we support their decision, as they comprehensively understand the use cases for both EKS and GKE. This invariably leads to a smoother onboarding process, as we are well-equipped to cater to their specific requirements.

We are working and monitoring HTTPS on GKE. It has a great manager for license management. The controller policy item for that particular feature doesn't seem visible anywhere, which might be a bonus, but we are unfamiliar with it. As we explore the multiple flavors of Kubernetes clusters, we aim to enforce similar policies across all clusters. Overall, everything looks good, and hand tools are one of the unique features that set us apart from other vendors.

The solution's support is terrible. Even the GCP engineers have been tracing some concerns. The dedicated GKE support engineer often tries to find solutions when raised tickets. Support engineers don't know about it. Regarding AWS or Azure support, GKE support needs a lot of improvement. The documentation is another issue. Even though the support engineers keep referring to the documentation, it's not current because the cloud keeps evolving. They need to update the documentation frequently. The controller policy will be compatible with version 1.26 of Kubernetes. We assumed we needed to upgrade to 1.26 fast, as we were running 1.25. However, after spending two and a half months, we realized it works with 1.25 as well. Even the GCP engineers were not aware that it was compatible with 1.25. 

Google Kubernetes Engine has a limited layer of support, and not many workloads are feasible. Some application teams need the Kubernetes platform. However, we can't recommend GKE, even though the cost would be lower than EKS and OpenShift. We can't trust GCP support when major issues arise.

I have been using Google Kubernetes Engine as an integrator for one year.

The initial setup is relatively easy, but unfortunately, some issues repeat. For instance, we always try to showcase our capabilities during working sessions with vendors, like when they come for a demo or even with AWS. However, when we require assistance, the installation seems straightforward, yet when an issue arises, we struggle to resolve it. We're trying to schedule a working session with GCP, but they are unavailable. Despite multiple follow-ups, when they finally arrive, the experience is not very productive, as the person often searches for solutions. Overall, the installation process is smooth. If we stick to the application, it seems to be working fine.

We use Terraform. It will take some time, but the cluster installation on the Google Kubernetes Engine will be completed within four or five hours.

I'm familiar with Kubernetes, but not many customers are using GKE. For instance, I've been involved in one project using GKE for about six to seven months; before that, another project used GKE for a year. However, I can only recall one project that used GKE for four months, about one and a half years ago. My work revolves around Kubernetes, but it's not exclusively focused on GKE.

The maintenance of the solution is at an intermediate level, as there are some issues. We encounter problems with the Ingress controller and the GKE clusters. We have some open cases with GKE and have been trying to find solutions. Some aspects seem easy, while others are challenging to troubleshoot. Moreover, the documentation lacks comprehensive recommendations for GKE; we often have to rely solely on Google's official documentation.

Overall, I rate the solution a five out of ten.

Google Kubernetes Engine is used for orchestrating Docker containers. We have 30 or 40 customers working with this solution now. We'll probably see 10 to 15 percent growth in the number of customers using Google Kubernetes Engine in the future. 

We've been using Kubernetes Engine for five years.

Google Kubernetes Engine is less stable in some highly complex deployments with many nodes. However, those are probably edge cases.

Google Kubernetes Engine is scalable 

The ease of deployment for Google Kubernetes Engine is about average.  

Google offers yearly and monthly subscriptions. 

We don't prefer Google over Amazon or any other Kubernetes solution. It depends on the technology stack that our customers choose based on project needs. It's not better than the others.

I rate Google Kubernetes Engine eight out of 10. 

This is Prophaze deployed in Kubernetes. So we have a Kubernetes. For example, Uber, they have all their sectors deployed in Kubernetes. There should be a native production for Kubernetes. We can have a separate cloud security solution for Kubernetes. Your solution has to be in Kubernetes. Because it should be a Kubernetes solution. So the WAF, in general, can be deployed in Kubernetes as a network solution.

It's like instantaneous scaling up. If you have a lot of traffic coming in, things like RAM and hard disk are easily able to scale.

It should support the latest GP use. I also think it should support load balancing.

I have worked with Google Kubernetes Engine for about three years. We are using version 10.

It's pretty much stable. I would say 99.9%, excellent.

Google Kubernetes Engine is very scalable, in fact, that is one of the best features.

For Google and Amazon, the Kubernetes is along the line of normal support. You email them or you can call them, but email is the preferable way of contacting them.

I heard about the normal service. Some of the eCommerce stuff, size or any of the other sites, you have a lot of traffic coming to your size. It is easy to buy if you have little traffic. You'll be able to buy and resell or if you still have money you can buy you two together. So, if you look at the last five years, people started to think about the cloud. You buy a cloud instance, you customize your configuration. People are now starting to look at Docker and Kubernetes.

The initial setup of Kubernetes Engine is quite straightforward. With just a few clicks, you can have it up and running.

We do everything from scratch here in our company. We have complete control over our selection. We use three people for maintenance.

Currently, it costs around $1000 per month which sorted our deployment. So once we get more clients, having a huge suffix, costs can go up. 

My advice to anybody considering this solution is to understand that you need to have everything ready before implementation. You need to have a migration strategy.

I would rate Google Kubernetes Engine an eight out of ten.

I am just starting with it. I am testing different platforms. I've done some deployments, and with some samples, I've tried to install the Kubernetes application.

I am using its latest version.

It's easy to manage and deploy. It's the best. 

I can have some controls through some parameters, and it's very good. 

There is a limitation for our infrastructure. It's very complex to see in one dashboard all the components and all the behavior on performance. I am looking for some additional tools for that. If I want to check the disk or file storage, it gets complex. There should be an integrated dashboard so that we can manage everything through a single pane.

I've been using this solution for two or three months.

It's stable.

I haven't yet used their support.

Its pricing is good. They bill us only per user. That's nice.

I'd rate it an eight out of ten.