Kubernetes Reviews

We produce software that connects multiple Kubernetes clusters together. All 50 employees of our company use Kubernetes.

We're building an application for Kubernetes users to consume.

We're creating CRDs for our software, so I would say maybe that the deployment model of Kubernetes is simpler than the life cycle management.

The network policies and RBAC management across multi-clusters could be improved. This is an issue we're trying to solve in the market.

I've been using Kubernetes for around four years.

I rate Kubernetes eight out of 10 for stability. 

For a single cluster, I would rate Kubernetes eight out of 10 for scalability. 

Deploying Kubernetes is complex. If you are deploying Kubernetes as a standalone solution, it's complex all around. However, it's a bit easier if you use one of the cloud providers' managed services.

We deploy it on the cloud. I have the deployment scripted, so it only takes me 10 minutes. I wrote Terraform scripts for that. We have about six people on our DevOps team. 

If you're switching from VMs to Kubernetes, you will see a return because you can pack more into the Kubernetes architecture using containers rather than VMs. You'll see some more savings on your infrastructure, as well.

The cost depends on the cloud provider, so I would give it a six out of 10 for affordability.

I rate Kubernetes a solid eight out of 10. It's only going to grow as time goes on. I recommend contacting a professional to help you deploy Kubernetes.

We use Kubernetes to deploy a software solution that the company sells to enterprises. Originally, our company offered their software installed without Kubernetes, but they plan to move all future customers to Kubernetes. I would say it's extensively deployed, and they plan to increase it as much as their customer base will accept it.

Kubernetes provides a standardized way to deliver software in a scalable form. The customers of the software already have people who know how to manage Kubernetes, or they can easily hire employees who do. Packaging up the software to run would require a lot of specialized knowledge.

Kubernetes provides scalable clustering for containers and other means of deployment.

Kubernetes is incredibly complicated, so one area of improvement is the ease of administration. I would like a user interface that you can run to help you debug and diagnose problems and suggest how to configure things.

I've been using Kubernetes for about four months. I started using it at HPE and actually switched to be able to work more with it at the new place.

Kubernetes is generally stable. 

Kubernetes is scalable if it's well-administered. 

As far as I know, there's not any customer support. There's customer support for the cloud instances. If you are running Amazon EKS, they might have support for that. It's open-source software, so there isn't Kubernetes support, but I could be completely wrong about that.

The complexity depends on how you deploy it and what flavor you choose. If you're using a cloud provider like Google, AWS, or Azure, they each have a flavor of Kubernetes you can deploy. It is easier to deploy one of those than downloading and installing it on your servers. There's also something called K3S, a lightweight version of Kubernetes that can run much more easily. It's designed to be used in the Internet of Things. It's relatively scalable and can be used independently, but there are different packages, just like Linux has different distributions.

The maintenance required also depends on how you implement it. It's going to require at least one person who knows Kubernetes. I imagine it might need multiple people to maintain the solution if you're not using the cloud versions.

Kubernetes is open source.

I rate Kubernetes 8.5 out of 10. My advice is to hire people who have demonstrated experience or are prepared to spend significant time taking courses because it's deep and broad, and there's a lot to learn. It isn't straightforward, but it would be hard to simplify it, considering what it does.

This solution is deployed on cloud with Azure.

Managing the container was a challenge. The cloud-managed Kubernetes allow us to take care of a big system and deployment and container management without having a big operational team.

It's still difficult to manage based on my experience. There are a lot of things that need to be done to get it up and running initially. It's very complex. The whole system required a big team, and that's why we were using the managed version. If we were not using the managed version, then it would have been very difficult to manage the system. Overall, it's very powerful, but there are also a lot of complexities to manage.

In the version that we're currently using, we still have to pull in a lot for different tools, like the distribution data, distribution tracing tool, etc. For it to be fully functional, we still have to deploy more tools into it. It should come with more default rules built into it for log aggregation, distributed tracing, and monitoring, so they can definitely improve upon those things. If they had better tool integration for monitoring and log aggregation, then it would be much better.

I've been using this solution for two years.

It's stable.

It's scalable. There are two different ways you can do it. You can manage it yourself, and then you're responsible for scalability software. But if you use a cloud solution, Google GKE and Azure have AKS and AWS had EKS. If we use those kinds of services, the scalability becomes easier to manage. It's definitely scalable, but even that part is very complex to manage unless you're using a cloud managed service.

It was very complex to set up the initial structure for Kubernetes. Using managed services made it simpler.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10.

Kubernetes is used t deploy all our applications. 

The deployment is one of the most valuable feature. The solution is also easy to use. 

The user-interface in regards to the other solution can be improved. 

I have been using Kubernetes since 2020. 

It is a highly scalable solution. There are twenty people using Kubernetes.

The initial setup and deployment is quite easy. We have one tech team and one Data Science team. 

If you are building an MVP or you are starting small, then Kubernetes might not be the best option because there are some charges associated with it.\  But if you are building an application that might scale rapidly, then you should definitely go with Kubernetes. 

If your deployments happen very frequently, then it is definitely the solution you should use, because you can restore previous versions if something fails.

I rate the overall solution a nine out of ten. 

We use the solution to manage the containers efficiently.

The solution has a well-defined interface for every other function like network, CRA container, and run-time interfaces. It is fantastic as open-source software, very generic, and easy to use.

The solution's learning courses for the new users and developers must be easier to understand. Presently, they are very abstract, and it is challenging for users to find data.

I have been using the solution for a year and a half.

It is a stable solution.

The solution is easily scalable. I rate it ten out of ten. Our technical team for the solution consists of ten executives. At the same time, there are two million end users.

I took help from the solution's technical team for Stack Overflow. Their service was good, and I rate it ten out of ten.

Positive

We switched to Kubernetes for better scalability, maintenance, and administration.

The solution's initial setup was straightforward. I've used Rancher Kubernetes engine to set the cluster. The deployment took two days to complete. The process involved downloading the binary file and configuring it to servers.

We deployed the solution with the help of our in-house team. The team of three, including data engineers and data operations managers, execute maintenance for it.

I have seen a return on investment for the solution. 

We use the solution's open-source version.

It is easy to maintain distributed systems and applications using the solution. Although, it requires a few new features to improve managing the volumes. I rate it ten out of ten.

Kubernetes is used for cloud-native development. We deploy it to the hybrid cloud, like private in Azure and public cloud in Amazon AWS. Kubernetes is underlying, and we do not use Kubernetes directly. We use products that use underlying Kubernetes like OpenShift or Tanzu.

I like that it has really boosted cloud-native development and stood the test of time. The underlying architecture allows one to scale as per the business KPIs much faster. The underlying architecture is the master that works faster than the nodes. Then there are pods within those slave nodes, and there is a control pan as a part of the core architecture of the Kubernetes. Once you have the cluster up and running, you can monitor that and deploy your applications into the Kubernetes cluster. 

They should update Kubernetes more regularly. Kubernetes is open-source and supported by cloud-native communities. But there are other proprietary versions of Kubernetes like VMware, which runs Tanzu with underlying Kubernetes architecture, or Red Hat, which runs OpenShift. 

These have priority over the open-source project over the last five years. The Cloud Native Foundation is currently out with version number two. The first version came out 14 years ago. We really don't know when we will see another version or improvement with this totally open-source project.

Scalability can be improved. It should be flexible enough to run two instances that can be changed immediately to four, six, or eight swiftly. They could also simplify the logging process.

I have been using Kubernetes for about five years.

Kubernetes is stable.

Kubernetes is scalable because the underlying architecture allows you to scale faster.

The initial setup and installation are straightforward. You can install and deploy it within a matter of hours.

Kubernetes is open-source.

I would recommend it because of the microservices architecture that allows you to write cloud-native code in the Kubernetes environment. Kubernetes has become a leading choice for most big companies, and they are making their own products based on the underlying Kubernetes architecture. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Kubernetes a nine.

We have multiple use cases. We use it for pharmacy applications, databases, MySQL and web servers. We use Kubernetes for anything that runs normally.

The high availability of containerization is most valuable. We get density with planning containers, and the self-serving feature allows our developers to grab a container and complete testing. The self-serving feature is always in the cloud or locally integrated with Ceph or cluster.

The front end of Kubernetes could be built better as the front end is very rudimentary.

We have been using this solution for about five years. It is deployed both on-premises and on cloud but mainly on-premises.

It is a stable solution, and we don't have any issues.

It is very scalable. We can scale up, add notes, scale out horizontally, and scale the number of containers in a web server. We add triggers to the cluster, and it scales as needed. We have quite a few users of Kubernetes at our company, and it is very easy to add new developers as users.

The initial setup was straightforward. For testing, we fire up Kubernetes clusters about once a week for different departments. Depending on the containers, it generally takes about four hours to get a cluster up and running and connected to the storage. We've completed this many times and are familiar with the setup. We completed the setup ourselves.

The Kubernetes community edition is free, but we use OpenShift in production, which is the Red Hat version of Kubernetes.

We evaluated Swarm and some other solutions, but we eventually chose Kubernetes and OpenShift.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten. Regarding advice, in the retail field, where clients would require mobility and portability, and disposable computing, there is no comparison to Kubernetes.

At my company, we use Kubernetes to host our databases and applications. We work in the telecom domain, and our products use database technologies like Oracle, Postgres, and Cloudgres. We use Kubernetes to host NoSQL databases like Couchbase and Postgres and for some of our containerized applications. We are involved in multiple projects, not just a single one.

Kubernetes is a microservice. So, the best thing about Kubernetes is that most of the containerized applications are centralized. You don't need to develop specific company applications on top of container images. Kubernetes also provides flexibility in maintenance. It takes away most of the maintenance part, such as if a port crashes, it comes up automatically, making deployment very easy. We just need to run a few commands to deploy the application, and maintenance is taken care of by Kubernetes. Upgrading applications becomes smooth, requiring less effort and time.

Resource utilization, cost savings, and portability are additional advantages of Kubernetes. It is available in the public clouds, and portability becomes very easy. When it comes to networking, Kubernetes offers very flexible containerization with the added benefit of CSI.

There are several areas where Kubernetes could improve. For example, in one of our database projects, we needed a storage layer that would work on safer sites. Our application is a permanent one that requires low latency and is intensive in terms of networking. It works on every single URL and needs access to the database. After researching several solutions available in the market, we went with Portworx for the database back-end storage layer. However, we encountered an issue when we brought down one of the worker nodes in a cluster of three nodes. The pod that was hosted around that worker node was not responding on other worker nodes, even though it was responding. We found out that there was a feature in the alpha stages in the stable site that could have solved this issue, but we don't enable alpha features in our production environment. Therefore, we increased the replication factor in the storage layer from one to two to avoid this issue. Our application is latency-sensitive and demands low latency in terms of network and response time.

So, increasing a replica of the storage level will also cause double the I/O, which has additional costs involved. We did extensive research on that and found that the feature needs to be stabilized; certain improvements are required. 

I have been using Kubernetes for around two years now, and I'm familiar with it. I worked closely with both the implementation team and the engineering team as well as the research and development team.

It is a stable solution. 

Scaling up and down is easy in Kubernetes, so adding or removing worker nodes is simple and straightforward.

The engineering team uses it the most. We started with three projects, and now I can see around 150 to 200 people using it.

There is a good support community available.

It's free and open-source; anyone can use it. So there are no hidden fees or anything regarding Kubernetes.

I would encourage you to start with Docker containers first, get the hang of it, and then move on to Kubernetes.

Understand the Docker concepts, software, container networking, and how container images are built. Once that's done, it becomes easy to enter into the Kubernetes world. Kubernetes is an orchestration tool that builds on top of Docker containerization.

I would rate it as excellent because it is very easy to deploy applications, manage ports, and expose applications both within and outside the cluster. Kubernetes also has a good reach and can be used in both private and public clouds, and there is plenty of support in terms of documentation and online forums to help users who run into any issues.