Kubernetes Reviews

Kubernetes is a container management platform. 

I use it to be able to sell it to my customers. I am evaluating it and its general features.

I would like to have more knowledge and a good understanding of Kubernetes, what it can do, and what the use cases are to meet the customer's requirements or environment. 

By using it, I can properly advise the clients of what Kubernetes can, and can't do.

Scalability is the most valuable feature.

With Kubernetes, you also get High Availability.

Kubernetes can be used for most companies, but for some companies that may be too small, it may not be worth the investment, as it is expensive.

I have been working with Kubernetes for two years.

We are using the latest version.

Kubernetes is a stable product.

Kubernetes is a scalable product.

We have multiple sales teams, some are responsible for large enterprises businesses, some for medium-sized companies.

The documentation they have available is good.

I have not contacted technical support. 

Much like other products such as Red Hat, for example, have their own support.

I work with any product that is related to Kubernetes.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

It's simple, and it is easy to deploy.

We provide implementation services for our clients as well as maintenance.

In addition to Kubernetes, you have to pay for support.

The price could be cheaper.

They offer many different licensing models. There are many options to choose from.

I would recommend this solution to others. 

It is my job to do this and I feel that it is the future of every company.

We are integrators, and we are working on becoming partners, to obtain the certificate.

I would rate Kubernetes a nine out of ten.

It's a mobile phone application with a website written in Angular 8. It's a strategic microservices solution. There are a lot of containers and resources. The application is written in Java, and we are using Spring Boot, the second version. We are also using the application-gateway of Azure.

If you want to do the microservices strategy, you need to split the services to the smaller work. There must be containers in Docker. There are not that many good solutions for Docker. So right now, if you need to use Docker, you choose Kubernetes because they are number one for the container orchestration solution.

The auto-repair function in Kubernetes is perfect. When something breaks, the auto-repair function automatically repairs it. If you are running the content in Kubernetes, you have a good setup. You do not need to do anything for the management of this. So, the automation of Kubernetes is number one.

The Kubernetes dashboard can be improved. It is currently a mess. We were using Rancher earlier, and everyone was happy with the dashboard. Right now, we are using Kubernetes, and it's not working with Microsoft workstations. Aks is using mcr.microsoft.com/oss/kubernetes/dashboard:v2.0.0-rc7 for dashboard. It has problems with auth. It constantly deletes tokens in kube/config file. And auth with kube/config file is not working on mac. It does not work on chrome in windows 10. It is still laggy and slow. Auto refresh function is not working correctly and you need to refresh your browser. Older versions have similar problems. There is no restart function such as in rancher. There is no possible to restart or scale more deployments at the same time. You need to write script for that. Graphics design is out of date. After a while of not clicking anywhere it give you 401 and you need to login again.

I have been using this solution for two to three years. 

The stability is totally perfect because if something breaks, it gets auto-repaired. We had only one failure, but it was not the failure of Kubernetes, it was the failure of Azure machine.

The scalability is great. You have scale sets, and every scale set has node tools. You have different types of refurbishing, and you have a node count. If I need more CPU or more information, I just change the node count, and everything is run in the cloud. It will automatically pull the new node to Kubernetes in the product label, and the load will run there. 

I also used the downscale and upscale features. You can also automate the scaling, but I didn't try that. I would love to use that. I am using manual scaling. If I need a new installation, it takes two to ten minutes in a cluster. This can also be done by the junior admins in one click.

Support is the only problem we face with this solution. I don't know which plan we have, but our software is stable. We are also a customer of a reseller, and we need to open tickets with the reseller. After that, we open a ticket in Microsoft Azure, but it takes two or three weeks to get an answer from the technical guy from Microsoft, which is terrible. It could be because we have the basic support.

We were using Rancher 1.6 before, but it reached the end of life. Right now, the version is Rancher 2. In my opinion, I don't need to put another layer of Rancher 2 when I already have a good solution from Azure. So, I chose the Azure solution.

The initial setup is more complex because you don't only set up Kubernetes. You also need to set up some CI/CD solution, and you need a setup to back up your workload to the Kubernetes. If you want to deploy the workload to Kubernetes and you want to do it efficiently, you need to have Helm. Helm is for catalog package for Kubernetes. So, you need to know how to work with Helm. 

You need to create docket files or some DevOps scripts for deploying ability. The solution is complex. You definitely need to have an experienced DevOps person. If you have juniors in your company, they will not know how to set up the solution, which is not good. You need to have experience in tech DevOps.

For small setups, it doesn't matter. You run Kubernetes, put some containers, and you play with it. That's okay. However, if you want to run it in production with everything, it needs experienced DevOps staff. We have a team of up to 10 developers and DevOps members.

Yes, I am a certified administrator. Deployment was very easy. I deployed the Kubernetes service alone to run some workload in Asia. There is an automation feature in this solution. You only open one page and fill some requirements, and everything goes out to the team. It was great. 

I had everything scripted in the platform with code in 50 minutes, but this is only for Kubernetes, the infrastructure, and the network stuff. I had scripted everything again, but it was in the Ops script; not in the platform. I could deploy the complete workload within one hour.

The management layer is free, which is perfect. You don't need to pay money for the management layer, but in AWS develop service, you need to pay. I think it is €75 per month for the management layer. It is free here, so you can have as many Kubernetes clusters as you need. You are paying just for the workload, that is, for the machine, CPU, memory, and everything. 

I am still using the basic Docker Compose, which needs low care. I tried Rancher 2, but I don't have it in production. I also used Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS), and I also tried the Google Cloud Platform. 

I think Google Cloud Platform is the best one, but here in Slovakia, we don't have enough support for Google Cloud, which will become a problem. If I can choose from the integration, I think the Google integration is the best because we could get into the Google products, but here in Europe, we don't have the support for Google Cloud Platform. 

Kubernetes is a great product. I am currently also helping a customer with the implementation of AKS because they only have a private cloud, and they want to have a hybrid cloud. I highly recommend to use this feature, and not to install Kubernetes manually or use some third-party tools. The Azure community service is better implemented than AWS community service. 

They are not good at planning the upgrades for Kubernetes. So, you really need to constantly upgrade the cost. The upgrade is automatic, but Azure changed the integration of load balancing, and I was forced to re-deploy all costs, which costed my company. We need two clusters at the same time from every environment. So, this was not good. I contacted the support, but there was no way to change the integration of the load balancer. I hope this will never happen again in the future.

I would rate Kubernetes an eight out of ten. The dashboard and support could be better. 

Kubernetes is used for container management. The use case depends on the project. My company was releasing products that work with Kubernetes.

Kubernetes is scalable and the elasticity is sustainable.

Kubernetes is a complex solution. The product needs to be more manageable and user-friendly.

Currently, I work as a systems engineer. I have been using Kubernetes for two years.

Kubernetes is stable. Usually the solution requires maintenance, however, in my environment, Nutanix covers the maintenance like upgrading and patching.

The solution is scalable. A user can start their business with Kubernetes and the workload can expand as the business expands.

The solution is open source.

Kubernetes is a complex solution. If someone is looking to build Kubernetes in a production environment, I suggest they choose some partners like cloud providers or software solution vendors such as Red Hat or VMware. A lot of system integrators provide a solution, including technical support for Kubernetes. I recommend you find the right partner or provider.

I would rate Kubernetes a nine out of 10 overall.

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. 

I primarily use Kubernetes to manage containers.

Kubernetes' most valuable features include scalability and deployment.

Kubernetes' VM functionality and security could be improved. 

I've been using Kubernetes for six months.

I would rate Kubernetes' stability eight out of ten.

I would rate Kubernetes' scalability ten out of ten.

The initial setup is straightforward so long as you have an understanding of the product. Deployment takes around forty-five minutes to an hour.

We implemented using an in-house team.

I would recommend Kubernetes to other users and rate it ten out of ten.

Our use case of this product is for mobile banking applications. I'm the executive vice president of the company and we are customers of Kubernetes. 

The scanning and support network are the best features of this product. 

I think Kubernetes should simplify the setup and operation of the product. For now, we don't use many of the features that the solution provides, so there's nothing additional I'd like to see. 

I've been using this solution for over a year. 

Most of the time the product is stable but we do encounter some problems from time to time and it can be difficult to file reports. 

It's quite easy to scale most of the time but sometimes we encounter some difficulties. 

We have contacted technical support but sometimes we connect to online support because the official support is not enough. 

The initial setup is a bit complex and could be simplified. I think it's a simple setup for developers, but maintenance by the system engineer is quite complex, particularly when it comes to locating the problem. We get some support from the system vendor. Once deployed, maintenance is required on both the application and the infrastructure and our IT team is responsible for that. We have around 50 people involved on the system engineering side, they deal with Kubernetes but also with the operating system and database software. We have around 40 users on a daily basis. 

Kubernetes is an open source solution so there is no cost and, for now, no additional costs but we pay for the platform. 

I would definitely recommend this product. 

I rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution for orchestration.

Most of the clients we work with are enjoying the DevOps aspects of Kubernetes. They want to be able to safely and quickly deploy new applications. Others just enjoy the modern way they can deploy containers without being a DevOp company. 

The most valuable aspect of the solution is the scalability.

Kubernetes is quite complex. That's the reason there are some companies that are developing tools simplifying the life of the administrator. There are Kubernetes distributions, like Rancher. Rancher is one of my favorites. There are others too, like OpenShift, for example.

I would love to see a feature like VMware's vMotion, meaning a workload can be transferred from one host to another without being restarted. While true cloud native applications typically don't need such a feature, there is still a lot of single-container legacy applications out in the field. These applications get unavailable while being rescheduled to another node, for example when doing node maintenance.

I'd been dealing with the solution for the past three or four years.

The solution if very, very stable. It's a very mature product. While there is no software without bugs, it has 20 or more years of development behind it that makes it very robust.

The solution is extremely scalable. It's one of its greatest selling points. It also works for businesses of any size, from small to large.

Technical support is something I handle myself. I don't need to reach out to the Kubernetes team in order to troubleshoot issues.

We do have manufacturers of specific products that also have their own support we can access if we need to.

I have some experience with Docker. I also have a lot of VMware virtualization experience, although that doesn't have much to do with containers, per se.

That said, almost every software provider tries to adapt their solution to Kubernetes due to the fact that Kubernetes is gaining a lot of attention from everywhere. It's going to be the preferred way to deploy applications.

The complexity of the solution depends on the size of the installation and the product you choose. If you choose Kubernetes without any other tools, like Rancher or OpenShift, it's going to be very difficult and complex. However, if you have the chance to use one of those, it's much easier.

Once the solution is up and running, it requires monitoring, software updates, replacement when something fails, etc. Most of the time it's the provider that manages the infrastructure.

The solution is open-source. There are no licensing fees to speak of. It's under an Apache license, so anybody can use it. Some products that go on top of it, however, are licensed. 

I am a consultant, and I am just providing information about how to use this kind of software within specific companies.

Kubernetes is evolving now. 1.18 is the latest version, however, we don't have the newest version everywhere. That's the one we choose for new installs when we do them.

When it's deployed on the cloud, some of my customers are using public clouds such as Amazon, Google, or Microsoft. There are also some customers that use private clouds here in Switzerland. I work together with them.

If people are using modern technologies like containers or developing software by themselves, I would recommend this solution.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

Kubernetes is for orchestration. We use it for various large microservice-based architectures and web services. That's the ideal use case, but it's suitable for any kind of service that can be decomposed and needs to be scaled. Of course, it's much easier to deploy services that are stateless. It requires more skills to deploy anything stateful or data-based.

Kubernetes is a bit complex, and there's a steep learning curve. At the same time, I cannot imagine how it could be easier.  You need many add-ons to it, and the commercial releases of Kubernetes should address that. 

For example, Red Hat OpenShift comes with all the add-ons included, but Kubernetes itself is free software so, of course, you need some skills to use it.

I've been using Kubernetes for four years.

Kubernetes is highly stable, but it's a complicated system with complex dynamics, so it needs to be monitored constantly.

Kubernetes' scalability is good. We have participated in operating clusters with hundreds of nodes.

Kubernetes is an open-source solution, so there is no tech support. You have to look up solutions online. You can purchase tech support, but we haven't used that service so far.

We used Marathon Mesos in the past, but it's obsolete these days.

Installing Kubernetes is complex. You need extensive skills and knowledge to do it from scratch.I didn't do install the solution by myself. A colleague is an expert in this, so he handled it. 

You can probably deploy the bare-bones cluster within days, but it requires some study, which can take much longer. And if you want extra features, it will take more time. Kubernetes has a lot of features, so it could take three days or three weeks to deploy if you keep adding to it.

We are focusing on open-source Kubernetes that doesn't require a license, but we use OpenShift for customers. It's a licensed, supported solution by Red Hat.

I rate Kubernetes nine out of 10. I recommend Kubernetes, but it's not for the faint of heart. Deploying Kubernetes from scratch is a real technical challenge because you need to understand lots of technology. 

It's much easier to start with Kubernetes from some cloud provider or use a commercial solution like OpenShift. Doing the pure vanilla open-source Kubernetes is possible but requires expertise, which is hard to come by.