Kubernetes Reviews

We use Kubernetes to orchestrate the containers for deploying our Docker images to Kubernetes. I'm an Azure DevOps lead.

Kubernetes has some advanced features like auto-scaling and a good self-healing facility. If Kubernetes runs in the form of ports and one of the ports dies, a new one automatically appears. These advanced features help us to deploy our application and makes life easier.

I find the auto-scaling feature very good because rather than manually decreasing the number of nodes, we can define the threshold.

The UI should be improved. It would be helpful if it was more graphical. Kubernetes currently runs perfectly with the Linux environment because it has Docker as a container runtime, and Docker works perfectly with the Linux operating system. It should also be able to run with the MacBook and Windows OS, similar to Linux and it would be helpful if they would include this in the next release. 

I've been using this solution for four years. 

The solution is stable. 

If you're using a cloud service provider there's no problem with scalability. When there's a newer version, we'll upgrade our Kubernetes cluster to the latest version. 

We previously had an on-prem solution using some tools like ClearCase, which is a centralized repository we used to work under. Given that everyone is migrating to cloud, we've done the same, migrating our applications to AWS and Azure Kubernetes.

Although it doesn't take long to deploy, Kubernetes is difficult to set up even if it's the small, mini one-node Kubernetes cluster. For a cloud deployment, it's either Azure or AWS. The cloud service provider will take care of the master node. We currently have a DevOps team of seven people. If we have a big cluster, we can it into multiple clusters, one for the Dev team, one for the QA team, and one for production; each team can work on its cluster and deployment can be done quickly. 

Pricing depends on the cloud service provider. Comparing AWS and Azure, Google Cloud has a much better pricing model, as does Linode. We receive a monthly licensing account.

It's important to learn the architecture of Kubernetes and know what each and every component of Kubernetes does. It makes the deployment easier. Whether or not you choose Kubernetes depends on your use case. If you have a business model that requires minimal changes with fixed requirements then Kubernetes might not be the way to go. If you're constantly needing to make changes, Kubernetes is a great solution. 

I rate the solution eight out of 10. 

This is a container orchestration platform used to organize our containers. Most of our applications are developed containers. We need Kubernetes to manage the network and volumes. We had approximately 50 tech team members using this solution. 

This solution is cost effective and fast. We are able to use Kubernetes to orchestrate hundreds of container images which has been a major benefit. 

There is a feature called Terraform and, based on the reviews I have read, it could be improved. 

I have been using this solution for two years. 

This is a stable solution. 

You can scale Kubernetes up and down easily.

When it comes to support, we have mostly used the documentation provided for the solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward but you do need to know the basics. The speed and ease of the set up depends on how fast you want the application to be and the amount of traffic your application generates.

When I first started using Kubernetes, it was quite challenging. I would rate the set up a two and a half out of five.

Kubernetes is open source and is an orchestration platform. It is a cost effective solution and its pricing depends on your company and how you use it.

We evaluated solutions like OpenShift and Rancher. The great thing about Openshift is that it is ready to use out of the box. When using Kubernetes, you have to set everything up on your own. Besides that, there are not many differences between Kubernetes and the other solutions. 

This is a very good registration platform. It saves costs and is fast. You can deploy thousands of replicas of your application all at once, as long as you have enough resources. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

We have many applications that are running on top of Kubernetes.

The most valuable feature of Kubernetes is container orchestration.

Kubernetes can improve pod escalation.

In a future release, the dashboards could be more detailed. They are too simple.

I have been using Kubernetes for approximately five years.

Kubernetes is stable.

We have approximately 100 people using Kubernetes.

I have used the support from Kubernetes and it was good.

There is a license to use Kubernetes.

My company chose Kubernetes because it is the best tool for orchestration containers.

My advice to others that want to use this solution they should first study container concepts and create a POC.

I rate Kubernetes a nine out of ten.

Kubernetes is a container-based platform that is used for microservices-based applications. 

You can containerize and deploy your ports, as well as expose them over the internet, to get your applications running.

The performance is good.

The services it provides you are good.

It runs in multiple availability zones.

The configuration is a bit complicated.

Because the platform provided is so simple, additional configuration is required to get your apps up and running.

There are some issues with the upgrades. When updates are released, the older versions are decommissioned. 

The updates are quite frequent and are lengthy. It takes about an hour each time.

I have been working with Kubernetes for approximately two years.

It's cloud-agnostic Kubernetes, we have it available in Azure, AWS, and GCP.

In the two years that I have been using Kubernetes, I have not experienced any issues with the stability of this solution.

Our main e-commerce application is running in Kubernetes. Currently, we have three applications running, and we are trying to onboard different applications.

You need to have knowledge of Kubernetes to manage the cluster and to complete the deployment.

It can take 20 to 30 minutes to configure the Kubernetes cluster.

Once the setup is complete you can have your dependencies running in Kubernetes.

You need a core technical person, who is a DevOps engineer who has experience working on Kubernetes to deploy and maintain this solution.

We evaluated ECS, which is a service offered by Amazon.

It's an orchestration tool, but it has certain limitations.

I would highly recommend this solution to anyone who is considering using it.

I would rate Kubernetes a nine out of ten.

I was probably using Kubernetes from the operational side. The service requires high availability, ensuring 99.99% KPI for our customers. So, we primarily used Kubernetes for this purpose and for managing our services.

Kubernetes has everything. Its design structure is quite advanced, and its offerings are extensive. The practical feature was the seamless failover.

The big part has been the design of the environment and the configuration training itself. Then, they program in the test environment, establishing whether everything else is working. Once we hit the deployment on the test environment or the staging, we move to live. The challenging phase of that exercise is if you don't get the configuration right from the beginning to be able to adjust and change.

Kubernetes's configuration could be made easier, especially at the network level, including aspects like IPs and ports. Integrating it into our services was quite challenging.

I have been using Kubernetes for eight years.

The product is stable.

We service about three point four million transactions.

We had approximately twenty-two servers, with eleven on each side. So, we've got two sides, with eleven servers on one side being SQL servers. It took us about three months to set up the infrastructure, and the installation configuration took about one and a half months.

Six engineers were required for the solution's deployment.

The return on investment in terms of the services that we were offering was quite good. However, as we started to scale down, we lost the contract. Therefore, maintaining the environment then became very expensive.

The solution is expensive. The salaries of Kubernetes engineers were much higher. They came at a high price. Resources also came at a high price, and therefore, it became very expensive to continue with Kubernetes

The tool is not difficult to maintain, but if you've got problems, troubleshooting and devising can be challenging.

It was beneficial and very complex. The skills development for the team working on it was a little steep. It's more complex compared to other solutions similar to it. It's quite robust and nice, but the learning curve is steep.

In terms of resource management, for instance, if you run out of memory or usage capacity, Kubernetes seamlessly moves your workload from one node to another without any issues.

I recommend the tool primarily for enterprise businesses that can afford the cost associated with Kubernetes, including the end-to-end resources needed, such as people, systems, processes, and so forth.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We are using the solution to deploy applications that are based on the microservices architecture.

The solution has many valuable features but the most impressive is the ability to scale an application and continuously monitor if all the components of the application are functioning correctly. If one part fails, it will recreate that component only, without disrupting the application. Another valuable feature, unlike other solutions that use the imperative way of programming this solution uses the declarative way, so you only need to describe the end result and it will do everything to arrive at that state.

The solution can be improved by adding a management console that will allow the use of a graphical interface to do what is usually done using command line instructions. I would like to have a simplification of the update process, which is currently not straightforward and time-consuming. The security of the solution is in its infancy and needs a lot of work.

I have been using the solution for over a year.

The solution is stable as long as you don't touch the configuration and you know what you are doing otherwise, it will crash easily.

The solution is scalable, but it is difficult to do as a standalone solution. Most organizations use paid solutions, such as Rancher, or OpenShift that are similar to operating systems that embedded the solution in them.

The initial setup is straightforward. I am able to have a fully working cluster within half an hour. There are tools available that can help automate the deployment and reduce the time to under 15 minutes.

The implementation was completed in-house.

The solution is open source and has no fees.

I give the solution eight out of ten.

I suggest anyone who would like to use this solution first get the certification. You must be knowledgeable with Linux and comfortable with the command line interface.

Kubernetes is used to Dockerize and containerized applications.

Kubernetes has helped our organization by making our time-to-market better and the continuous integration and development are good. We can develop DevOps and FinOps methods.

The most valuable feature of Kubernetes is the integration with other solutions, such as Formative and Grafana.

Kubernetes could improve security. The security is really hard to deploy with proxies and other elements. Additionally, We have had some issues downloading repos and libraries.

In the next release, Kubernetes should develop a good interface for the administration and make the deployment of the solution easier.

I have been using Kubernetes for approximately six months.

Kubernetes is highly stable.

The scalability of Kubernetes is very good.

We have approximately 1,500 people using the solution in my organization. We have IT managers, administrators, and developers use it.

The support we have received has been very helpful.

I rate the support from Kubernetes a five out of five.

We have used other solutions previously, such as One Automation, and Nokia for traffic management.

The deployment of Kubernetes could be better. The initial setup took approximately a week to complete.

I rate the initial setup of Kubernetes a four out of five.

For our implementation strategy, we enabled a cluster in the production environment, dev environment, and pre-production environment and we made two masters and many nodes. However, it depends on the application and the traffic volume.

We use integrators for some of our deployments and for others we use only our team.

We use four of five administrators for the maintenance of the solution.

We have seen an ROI because the time it takes to market has been very quick to make a deployment.

Kubernetes is an open-source solution that can be free. We have some distribution with licenses, such OpenShift and Tucows in Amazon. They are billing services.

If you need to take care of proxies and configuration you may find the use of the GitHub repo Cube install helpful. It can help deploy and administrator the Kubernetes platform.

I rate Kubernetes an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution for deploying containers and scheduling the jobs to the Kubernetes for our server-side deployment.

Before we switched to Kubernetes, we had been using a solution that required a manual interaction with the server. Every time you need to scale it up and down, it was a lot of hassle. With this solution, we were able to add continuous integration with Kubernetes. We can trigger the automatic deployment and it will just be deployed and nobody needs to go and do anything. In terms of scaling, we can define the scalability rules, which will grow as the traffic grows, as opposed to past instances where you needed to change the instances of the CPO, etc.

Since we are saving so much time, we're also saving our company money. We're saving a few hours of work a week at this point.

The ease of use in the solution is a very valuable aspect for us.

The scalability of the product is excellent. Scalability is particularly important to us due to the fact that we have available traffic that requires our service to scale up and down according to the load on the service.

It would be very interesting if they could introduce a template engine to set dynamic values in the deployment time. It would be ideal if it could be native in Kubernetes as it would be much easier.

I've been using the solution for three to four years.

In this particular deployment, we've had the solution running for a little bit less than a year, and we have had zero stability issues. It's extremely stable. There are no bugs and glitches. It works without fail and is very reliable.

We had one instance once where it disappeared once for an instant, and nobody even noticed anything was wrong. That said, I do not think that was a fault of Kubernetes. It was more about an AWS issue.

From the perspective of managing Kubernetes and deploying and updating, we have two developers (one team leader and a DevOps). We taught four people to actively use and manage it. Then, almost everyone is using some service that is running on Kubernetes (about 15 or so people), therefore, it's widely used at our organization.  

We do have plans to increase usage in the future. We're planning to scale as we go where we will add more services and more deployments into Kubernetes.

We don't directly reach out to technical support. Rather, we tend to use their available documentation for troubleshooting.

We are using it on AWS, and it was fairly easy to deploy. As far as I know on other platforms, it is also quite easy as they have a faster-managed service. However, if I deploy it manually myself and manage the nodes by myself, it's pretty complex. Therefore, it can get pretty complex. Using the AWS managed solution removes the complexity for us.

The deployment took us about two days with testing, et cetera.

At the first stage, we had to wrap everything on our server-side, with the applications in the Docker containers. Then we deployed the ETS to the cloud and then we deployed the containers into the ETS. After that, we switched the browser to point to the newly deployed containers and load balance cells instead of the old machines. After that, we switched off the old machine.

We handled the deployment ourselves. We didn't need the assistance of any consultants or integrators.

Technically, we pay either way. We had the machine that we paid and we switched it off. We didn't really save on money investment so much as stability investment. We invested in this environment in order to attain a more stable and predictable application. That was our ROI.

The solution can be more expensive for smaller companies. If you run it on a smaller scale it's pricey. However, if you scale up or use it on a larger scale, it's pretty competitive in the pricing.

For example, on Amazon, the billing is mostly for the machines that you're using. If you have a lot of containers, hundreds of containers, running on the ECS, it can even be more expensive than if you were running the same containers on some deployment as you're paying for the nodes that are running the machines. If you can use fewer containers in the same machine it can be cheaper. It really depends on deployment. 

If you decide to take the managed service, be aware that it's $100-$200 extra monthly. It's not much, and it's worth the cost.

We did evaluate Amazon's Elastic Container cluster before ultimately choosing this product.

Kubernetes is multi-platform. You can run it on any cloud and you can also run it on your local machine. The implementation is also much more straightforward with Kubernetes and deployment is easier. Even though the product is from Amazon themselves, Kubernetes is easier to maintain and deploy.

I would advise new users to take the managed solution. Don't deploy it by yourself. Just take a managed service. It's really worth it. I advise this due to the fact that it's a lot of time and effort. It's not that expensive in terms of overhead. It may be $100 or $200 or something like that monthly. When you pay $3,000, let's say, the $100 doesn't really matter. However, the work that your DevOps will have will be costly. They will initially invest to maintain your unmanaged deployment. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this solution a ten.