Google Kubernetes Engine Reviews

All of our clients are using GKE lightly. The companies are big, but the usage is small.

GKE's plugin management and configuration sync are excellent features. The amount of data it provides is good, and I've been able to integrate it with the things I need.

The user interface is a bit confusing sometimes. You need to navigate between the various consoles we have. It's hard to figure out where things are.  It's frustrating. The documentation could be a bit better.

I have only been using GKE for a couple of months, but I have been working with Kubernetes for about six years and EKS for a year. 

GKE is scalable.

We were previously using basic Kubernetes that we set up and managed ourselves. I've also used EKS.

Setting up GKE is somewhat complex. There are lots of concepts that are involved and many options to consider. At the same time, you can easily automate it. It's easy to interact with the client and the APIs, and the documentation is good. Sometimes it is confusing, but you can find most of the stuff that you need.

I think EKS and AWS are very similar usages. I don't know if one is superior to the other. Google might be better at working with identities for workloads and resource integration. I think it's a bit better and easier than AWS's IM.

I rate Google Kubernetes Engine eight out of 10.

Google Kubernetes Engine's most valuable feature is container deployment.

An area in which Google Kubernetes Engine could improve is configuration.

I've been working with Google Kubernetes Engine for a few months.

Google Kubernetes Engine is stable.

Generally, Google Kubernetes Engine is easy to scale, but it can be difficult in some cases.

The initial setup is generally straightforward but can become a bit difficult with more complex projects.

The price for Google Kubernetes Engine could be lower - I'd rate its pricing at three out of five.

I'd rate Google Kubernetes Engine as eight out of ten.

We primarily use this solution for authorization and service deployment.

The CLI commands are good.

The network configuration has to be simplified.

I would like to see a more user-friendly interface. Currently, it is a little complex, and the technical guides are not easy to follow. Compared to other applications, the documentation needs a lot of improvement.

Cluster-based software support needs to be improved.

Stability-wise, this solution is really good. 

Scalability for this solution depends on the application. For normal microservice-related applications where there is no clustering, it is really evolved and easy to scale. However, for cluster-based applications such as MariaDB, or other cluster-based tools, scalability is complex and it needs to have more documentation.

We are using the solution for managing deployments, so there are only five or six users.

We have not subscribed to outside help for this solution. We have been using Google to search the forums for issues that we encounter. There is no defined place where I can refer problems and find answers. 

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

The initial setup is not straightforward. While it is not too difficult, there are some complexities. For example, sometimes when we add to the network there is an error and something goes wrong, which means that we have to start again, from scratch.

This is an open source solution, so there is no pricing or licensing.

I evaluated Docker Swarm, but compared to that, Kubernetes is very good. Docker Swarm is only for small applications.

This is a really good product for independent applications or microservices. The downtime is minimal, and we have even made it zero downtime for deployment. However, when they are cluster-based applications, it is really complex.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.