Kubernetes Reviews

We are platinum partners with Oracle and we are preferred partners with Microsoft. I work for an organization which is on both sides of the coin. We are a service integrator organization. We don't have a specific loyalty, we blend in and provide the services. I'm a solutions architect.

I like the interface of this solution. When you're using it in real time, it seems to be a little easier to use versus the other options. 

If you're using the solution on the desktop, you eventually have to download the Azure package and install it before you can actually use the Azure commands in Kubernetes. There are more community packages that have been released, rather than releases by Kubernetes. I understand that it's an open server and people can contribute to it, that's how it works. However, sometimes people get misguided and that's where we need some support. It would make a difference. 

I've been using this solution for almost three months. 

It's a pretty stable solution. We have about 40 plus people who use it.

I would turn to community support as a first step. The blogs, which cover it, have given me a little bit more insight in terms of how and what and all of that. But when it comes to community, I've not asked much, but I've learned from it. I've watched some videos and see there is some online free training. I haven't been in a situation where I needed external support from Kubernetes.

We used to use Dockers. We explored Kubernetes because we want to do market platform, which is basically a show or an article together and we wanted to use a single platform for both Oracle and Azure. Not that Dockers didn't do it, but we did kind of wonder what would be the better option. 

The initial setup was relatively easy. I mean I've obviously used some of the apps before, but this seemed to be a little easier for me. I think when I used it in the Azure implementation earlier this year, it didn't give me too much heartburn although it takes a little bit more than you expect. I can just start the QP CDL and push out the command and start it. If I'm using it with Dynatrace, it's the same thing, but when it came to deploying the package into the local machine and then running it, and then trying to get the right connection within Azure it was more difficult. 

I would recommend going through the training to see what the limitations are within Kubernetes. There's not a lot of training, but what training is available should be used so people can understand the difference between Docker and Kubernetes. If somebody has used Docker previously, they can see the difference even though the methods are the same. It's the same madness, but it will help you to better position things like command line interfaces.

We had a bit of a struggle when I was trying to implement it in Azure. But if you look at the Oracle implementation, it worked really well so I would rate this solution a seven out of 10. 

This solution is used for serving DevOps.

Kubernetes is quite controversial. It increases developers' overhead and allows them to provide trolling updates and zero downtime. In addition, it has increased the possibility of delivery of new features without training downtime of the application.

All the current features are quite harmonic, and they require each other.

We have been using this solution for about two years, and it is deployed on the public cloud.

I rate the scalability a ten out of ten. It is infinitely scalable, and no feature can scale like Kubernetes. How much we use the solution depends on the company's business needs.

We did not use other solutions and have only used Kubernetes.

I rate the initial setup a four out of ten. It requires call writing come, YAML files and help to chart things done. You need to add something new to improve the solution and handle the traffic. The deployment was completed in-house, and one person was enough to complete the deployment.

We have not seen a return on investments. It's saved the possibility of rollout and zero downtime from projects. It's like the biggest advantage of the human ordinate.

It is an open-source solution, so it is free to use. People on the internet always advocate for cheaper options. If you want to use a managed solution, you'll have to pay for it, and it can be expensive if you manage it on your own.

I rate this solution an eight out of ten. Regarding advice, if you have a small infrastructure, do not go with full Kubernetes. Instead, use smaller solutions like K3s or Rancher and full Kubernetes if you have a vast infrastructure.

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.

The use case in this organization is basically to containerize the applications. It covers both the operational and technology side. I work in the train industry here and that is a medium-sized enterprise. I'm a cloud architect and we are customers of Kubernetes. 

A valuable feature is the management of containers and not having to worry about the high availability or scalability, especially when launching it in the cloud. I like that they provide a managed platform as a service, and you don't really have to worry too much about the master nodes that control the workloads. You tell them what you want: This is a minimum number of container instance, or a maximum number of container instance in this tier. It automatically gets taken care of. What I like about Kubernetes is that it actually manages the containers for you so there are no concerns  regarding availability. If something fails, it launches another one and it scales out which is good. 

That's a good question. I'm not that experienced but there are definitely challenges in Kubernetes, if you are managing the cluster yourself. So doing all the admin work, managing the masters, there are some learning curves involved. If some of those things could be simplified, that would be awesome.

I've been dealing with this solution for around four years. 

Kubernetes is quite stable and has pretty wide community support. Even the enterprises are using it so if you're talking about a stable release and the nightly build and those sorts of things, definitely the enterprise use the latest stable build. And then, when they come across any issues they probably look for the next release or maybe batches and whatnot. But I guess it's fairly stable and it's just like any other open source solution. And the fact is that it's backed by so many large companies, especially Google, so there's no stability problem at all.

The scalability of this solution is fine. 

Deployment is pretty quick. I haven't done much of a bigger scale deployment as such, generally small to medium scale deployment and I've made use of the cloud-based approach. I don't have any issues there. 

I like the solution but it depends on the size of your workload. For example, Docker is good for a very small workload or maybe if you are just deploying using Docker, building and deploying your CICD-based tasks. But if you require a more complex solution, using containers or maybe when you have a high traffic workload, even with simple architecture, you might be looking at Kubernetes to optimize the workload.

There are other solutions on the market like Serverless, I would use that in preference to Kubernetes which can sometimes be difficult to manage. You can always make use of Serverless. For that reason, I would rate Kubernetes a seven out of 10. 

Kubernetes is a container management platform, and all our microservices are deployed on this platform.

There are features that come out of the box with Kubernetes, with respect to scaling, reliability, etc. It's the leading container management platform. There are other competing ones, but this is the leading one.

It has multiple instances of the application running. If one of them goes down, the other one automatically spins up.

It would be nice if they could make it easier for developers and infrastructure staff to automate some of the pieces that they have to do manually at the moment.

This is a solution I've been using for four or five years.

It's stable. It's managed by the cloud provider.

Depending on the SLAs with respect to scalability, we can scale up and down as per our demand. We could increase the number of nodes instantaneously for our requirements. In our company, we have 5,000 people around the world using Kubernetes.

As for initial setup, If it is on an on-premises environment then it's a little bit tricky, but if it's on public cloud, then they have an offering where you can spin up clusters within minutes. Those are managed by the cloud providers. On cloud platforms, the initial setup is easy, but if you want to spin up your own cluster and manage that, then it could be a lot of work. Spinning up might be easy, but maintaining that cluster could be a lot of work.

Look at your use cases to make sure that Kubernetes is required. It is generally required when there are concerns with scalability or when there is a need for a solution that is highly available and highly scalable. If this is the case, then it makes sense to use Kubernetes.

It could be used as a global tool as well. Some of the nodes would be on-premises and on the cloud or multi-cloud.

However, if you have a simple application which is used by your own company and some internal applications, and is not used by many people, and scalability is not the concern, then you shouldn't go for Kubernetes.

I would rate this solution at eight on a scale from one to ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is to maintain the container orchestration. Our platform is mostly containerized and our solution needs Kubernetes because it was developed in a containerized environment. We are end-users. 

The Kubernetes cluster is easy to maintain on the container orchestration. It's very stable with outward scalability and good performance which is very important for our platform. Kubernetes is a good choice to maintain the containerized application and solution. 

Scalability is good but I'd like to see it improved with more user-friendly operability. 

I've been using this solution for about 18 months. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable.

Installation of the Kubernetes manifest file is quite straightforward. We have close to 800 users. My team has two engineers who deal with any issues. 

I highly recommend this solution and rate it 10 out of 10. 

We are developing some microservices for the banking sector. We are developing microservices and deploying all of them into Kubernetes. We're looking to make these projects scalable, so we are designing the policies for scaling. Also, we are deploying some front-end items. We are integrating Kubernetes on Azure, with the keyboard and storage. This means we have to use the invoice controller to properly route the request to the final destination.

Also, we deploy a database, however, it's not the main goal; it's just for a backup plan as we've had some troubles with the database, which is currently in hosted in Oracle Cloud.

The full concept behind Kubernetes is quite good in terms of trying to really take full advantage of the resources you have. You can separate your company by names, et cetera. 

The scalability seems quite good also.

It seems that there is a community behind the solution that is supporting a lot of additional features that can be included in Kubernetes to integrate with other providers or software.

The price is something they need to improve. 

I'm not a very technical guy. Graphically, the product could be more friendly for the users. 

We'd like it if they had some sort of web management tool, I don't know if there is already one out there, however, it would help a lot.

I've used the solution for around four months.

It has been very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution can scale. It's not a problem.

We have been going into production right now, and I know there are other projects currently at the bank with the same infrastructure using Kubernetes. We're increasing usage.

While there is support from the community, I really don't know much in terms of support and if, for example, Microsoft through Azure will provide something. We have a provider that we work with that is in charge of the support. That said, it's something like a blue layer. They set up everything, however, they didn't do anything further like channel configurations or deployments. 

I didn't properly set up the cluster. It is a service from Azure. There is another team that is in charge of setting up everything about the cluster. I have only been configuring some of the requirements for the cluster.

The setup is quite small right now. We also have a pipeline supported by Jenkins and there is one person working on that side for the other configurations. So we have about two or three people (who are engineers) working on the right now.

I'm a reseller.

I've been reading a lot about the subject since it is new to me. There is a lot of good documentation. Of course, some of the Kubernetes webpage documentation is sometimes confusing as it's not that straight in terms of what you have to do. Still, it helps to take some lessons from some platforms Microsoft has. People need some training on the subject.

Overall, I'd rate the solution 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.