Kubernetes Reviews

We are an IT services company, and I am part of a team of DevOps engineers deploying Kubernetes for customers. We deploy it on a virtual machine, so you can deploy it anywhere. 

The use case depends on the customer's deployment. For example, if the customer has microservices for lots of applications, they can use Kubernetes to segregate new microservices into different segments. They're not using a monolithic application. The same application has different components.

The best feature is autoscaling. It's effortless to use for scaling deployment parts, CI/CD, etc. 

Kubernetes should improve its consistency across different types of deployments. My customers tell me that they get much better performance when Kubernetes is deployed on VM versus PaaS services from Azure. 

I have been using Kubernetes for about two and a half years.

Kubernetes is highly stable. 

The scalability is an excellent aspect of Kubernetes. It can scale up horizontally and vertically. You can scale by cluster and node. Scalabiity is the best part of Kubernetes.

We have never contacted Kubernetes support. If have a problem, we raise a ticket to Microsoft, and their engineers will help us. 

Deploying Kubernetes is straightforward. The total deployment time depends on the number of applications and repositories we have on that day. If you are only setting up Kubernetes, it takes about five to 10 minutes, excluding the front-end IP, etc. 

Kubernetes is an open-source tool, so you only need to pay for your infrastructure. If you have your own data center, you can install Kubernetes and containerize the server, but if you're using PaaS services from Azure, so you must pay Azure for your utilizing their services. The total cost of ownership depends on your configuration. 

I rate Kubernetes eight out of 10. If your team has experience with containerization, they should work on Kubernetes. It will make development and deployment easier. 

I recommend first containerizing your application and running it in a dev environment to test it and get some experience before implementing it in a production environment.

The most valuable features of Kubernetes are the integration with Docker and there is plenty of documentation available. We work with Docker as a container, and it is more integrated with Docker than VMware Tanzu.

Kubernetes could improve by having better integration with VMware solutions.

I have been using Kubernetes for approximately three years.

Kubernetes is stable. They are the leader in their category.

If the platform for Kubernetes is VMware it is not scalable, but if the platform is Linux, it's scalable.

There are approximately 15 developers and five network administrators using the solution in my organization.

The technical support from Kubernetes is good.

I have used VMware Tanzu previously and I would like to work with it more because it is better integrated with other VMware solutions, such as vCenter, vSphere, vSAN, and NSX.

I have done the initial setup of Kubernetes many times, for me the setup is easy. If I am focused I can complete the full implementation in one or two days.

We have received a return on investment from using Kubernetes.

The price of Kubernetes could be lower. However, it is less expensive than VMware Tanzu. Additionally, technical support is expensive. The overall cost of the solution is approximately $1,000 annually.

Kubernetes is the leader in this category, and are very good. However, if the platform they want to implement is VMware, I would advise using VMware 10.

I rate Kubernetes an eight out of ten.

If our project requires a cloud deployment we will use a cloud provider's version of Kubernetes. For example, Azure or AWS Kubernetes Elastic Services. We try to make use of whatever is provided by the cloud providers. 

If the project requires an on-premise solution we use products from various vendors, such as Red Hat or other open-source products that can be downloaded and installed for free.

We are using Kubernetes for container management.

Kubernetes use cases are typically containerized application hosting. This is the basic use case that we do. Another use case can be deploying new application microservices which are loosely coupled and containerized using microservices-based architectures.

We can achieve a reduction of almost 50% to 60% of effort in operations by using Kubernetes.

The most valuable feature is the Zero Touch Operations, which involves a new way of performing operations and support. We do not have to do maintenance, the operations are very simple.

Kubernetes can improve by providing a service offering catalog that can be readily populated in Kubernetes. 

The service catalog, for example, could be a CRM application on Kubernetes or an eCommerce retail application packaged on Kubernetes and to be readily deployable. Instead of somebody trying to figure out all the configurations of hosting this on Kubernetes, if something was readily available, which the developers for these CRM or eCommerce products, they could partner with either AWS, Google, or Azure and make the deployment of such applications readily available on Kubernetes. 

This would allow very little work for a business to go live. The business can quickly straight away and subscribe, launch, and use. It is not difficult for an IT team to be involved to create an application environment to start up. It's would be much easier for businesses to use it directly and start off the applications.

I have been using Kubernetes for approximately three weeks.

The stability of Kubernetes depends on how we have designed it. Our design is stable because I know how to design it and if something goes wrong how to fix it.

The scalability is superb, it is highly scalable.

We have 75,000 employees in our organization that is using this solution.

Technical support is not used very frequently. We use advanced-level support occasionally. It is only in certain circumstances when we have some advanced complexity that we reach out to an expert.

A person with a moderate level of knowledge on Kubernetes, with the help of the community forum, and documentation, most of their problems can be solved.

We do not need any particular company, such as Red Hat, to come in and support the Kubernetes environment, or some other company, such as Ubuntu Canonical to be signed up for a contract to support Kubernetes. It's not required.

The initial setup is straightforward, it was not complex.

The maintenance for Kubernetes is very minimal.

You need to pay for a license if you buy branded products. For example, if you take the services from Azure, AWS, or Google, the price of the Kubernetes cluster is inclusive of the service that's being offered to us on a pay-and-use model.

I haven't tried all the advanced features of Kubernetes, but I feel it is meeting most of the requirements of a new design architecture for applications to be hosted. I don't see any particular functionality which is not available for me as of now.

The open-source ecosystem is providing lots of ideas to solve all kinds of problems. The open-source ecosystem of developers, implementers, and integrators is providing lots of ideas. If there is something I may not know, I look up to the community forum and receive answers. There are no issues of finding something, however, Kubernetes by itself has to improve. It is a matter of the implementer to discover ideas to solve the problem. The Kubernetes engine is designed very well.

I would highly recommend this solution to others.

I rate Kubernetes a nine out of ten.

We use Kubernetes mainly for the apps. We are a government organization, and we have many public-facing apps. We also run all our microservices run on Kubernetes.

I like that it gives you all the flexibility, for example, auto-scaling. Everything is figured out exactly right. It manages all your workloads without much intervention. It can scale in, scale out, and with security. Everything looks pretty good compared to the old legacy way of working.

Kubernetes has been tested and proven. I don't think there's anything that needs improvement, and it has been working very well. But the plugins could be better. That is one pain point we had, and we had to get in with many other open standards, like Calico networking and more. 

I have been using Kubernetes for about three years.

Kubernetes is stable.

Kubernetes was good, and it would automatically scale in and scale-out. We never had issues with scalability.

I have both Cloud Foundry and Kubernetes. Cloud Foundry is much better suited for an organization with less operational stuff. With about three people, you can manage all the apps in it. But Kubernetes needs patching and more, which makes it a bit tricky.

Kubernetes is open source. But we have to manage Kubernetes as a team, and the overhead is a bit high. In comparison, platforms like Cloud Foundry have much lower operational overheads. With Kubernetes, I have to manage the code, and I have to hire the developers. If someone has a product, a developer should know exactly what he's writing or there's high availability, and all those things which impact costs.

I would recommend Kubernetes to new users.

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

Kubernetes is open source. It's an orchestration platform for container clusters.

The solution can be deployed anywhere, such as on-premise or in the cloud.

Kubernetes is a leading container orchestration solution, known for its simplicity and ease of use. Being open-source, it benefits from large community support, including enterprise support. Many companies offer their own version of Kubernetes, making it widely adopted and supported in the industry.

The lack of native support for billing and self-service capabilities is an area Kubernetes could improve. This requires the use of third-party integrations or managed services in order for customers to be able to deploy clusters on their own. It would be beneficial to have these features built-in into the Kubernetes platform.

I have been using Kubernetes for approximately one year.

This is one of the most stable platforms in the market.

I rate the stability of Kubernetes a nine out of ten.

The scalability of Kubernetes is excellent. You can have one to two nodes and it can scale to 1,000,000 nodes.

I rate the scalability of Kubernetes a ten out of ten.

The initial setup for Kubernetes is not straightforward. Setting up a Kubernetes cluster requires some level of experience and training, as well as knowledge. The procedures and setups vary depending on the specific deployment scenario.

I rate the initial setup of Kubernetes a six out of ten.

We use one person to deploy the solution. However, it can depend on if it's a bare metal setup for on-premise, this could take longer. Starting from the bare metal for a cloud deployment one person is enough.

For the maintenance of Kubernetes, one person is more than enough because it's an orchestration platform. They only manage the container or microservices.

My advice to others is for them to gain a basic understanding and training in Kubernetes and also develop some management skills. If they are willing to learn and can manage the technology, Kubernetes is a good choice as it is an emerging and leading technology in the cloud industry.

I rate Kubernetes a nine out of ten.

I am using Kubernetes for particular projects.

The most valuable feature of Kubernetes is automation. It is the best tool for automation.

I have been using Kubernetes for approximately two years.

The stability of Kubernetes is very good. It does not go down.

All of our DevOps engineers are using Kubernetes in my company.

The initial setup of Kubernetes is difficult. However, if you are used to the flow then it is easier. The length of time it takes for the implementation depends on the project.

My company chose Kubernetes because it has automatic deployment.

If it is your first time using Kubernetes then you will have to study how to use it and learn how to do scripts.

I rate Kubernetes a seven 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.

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.