Tekton Reviews

We have our automation pipeline in Tekton. We create pipelines, basically pipelines, to run automated customer scenarios through our automation, Bash scripts, and Golang. To execute these tests routinely, we have implemented those pipelines in Tekton.

Tekton's integration capabilities enhance our development workflows. The product we are testing is also based on Kubernetes and containers, as is Tekton. At the end of the day, we use similar files and languages. 

So, it integrates pretty well. We use it through OpenShift pipelines on the OpenShift platform. The updates are automated, so we don't have to worry about them too much.

I like that you can parallelize tasks. If two tests are not conflicting, you can run them in parallel. This saves time. You can also test pipelines locally if they are not working. 

Additionally, I like the branching and visualization tools for the pipeline. I can easily share an image with someone, and they can understand the pipeline's structure.

Compared to traditional tools like Jenkins, Tekton lacks a lot of features. It's not efficient in managing conflicts between multiple pipelines. If I execute a test and someone else executes a test, we face lots of conflicts and overwriting of each other's work. That's one area for improvement.

Also, the reliability of Tekton is sometimes an issue. I think it's more of a Kubernetes-related issue than a Tekton issue. There are more outages than we expect. 

We have a strict requirement of running tests four to five times a day, and sometimes it's not able to provision the pipeline on time, so we lose test runs.

I have been using it for two years. 

We have had stability issues, but on my side, it was more dependent on Kubernetes, the platform we used. But it depends on the deployment model. 

I would rate the stability a seven out of ten. 

No issues with scalability. I can estimate that around 20 teams, with an average of four people per team, use it, so around 80 people use it. 

The customer service and support have been excellent. We have an internal deployment of Tekton, so the support team is also internal.

Positive

It's easy, but it depends on which distribution you use. The Google one, I haven't tried. Because it is easy on RedHat one. 

Challenges:

There are too many files to change if you have to make any minor source code changes. It becomes difficult to review (if someone has changed something) and assess the impact of those changes on other tasks or pipelines. There's too much friction in terms of making small changes.

Tekton is an open-source tool, and we use it directly. Red Hat has its own distribution of Tekton.

We have our own internal deployment, so we don't pay anything.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten because there are lots of areas for improvement.

I would recommend it to someone who is well-versed in Kubernetes and can debug internal issues, not to any newcomers. I would suggest they explore traditional legacy tools first.

We use the solution in CI/CD pipelines for application deployment. 

The tool's most valuable aspect is its compatibility with the cloud-native environment. It can be easily installed on Kubernetes and leverages its resources to run CI/CD pipelines.

Some of the tool's cons include its minimalistic dashboard, which lacks detailed information and control compared to other tools like Jenkins or GitLab. Additionally, it's primarily used by Japanese companies.

Another drawback is its dependency on the Kubernetes cluster for deployment, which could be a limitation. One feature I would like to see included or enhanced in Tekton is the ability to reuse specific pieces of pipelines as reusable modules.

I didn't choose this tool because they already used it when I joined this company. I don't like this tool because it has many limitations. I believe many other tools are better than Tekton.

Integration with other solutions involves mainly API calls. Tekton lacks a mature dashboard, making integration more challenging than tools like GitLab or Jenkins.

I encountered some challenges, particularly with compatibility between different versions of Tekton and Kubernetes. For example, the Tekton version couldn't be installed on Kubernetes version 1.24 due to compatibility issues. Some versions of Tekton don't support certain Kubernetes features, leading to installation issues. It depends on Kubernetes, and matching Tekton versions with compatible ones is essential.

The tool has increased our operational costs due to the need for repetitive tasks and code duplication. Unlike other tools like GitLab or Jenkins, it often requires duplicating resources across clusters or regions. This duplication elevates maintenance costs, as any code changes must be applied in multiple locations.

I have been working with the product for ten months. 

The solution is stable, and I haven't encountered any performance issues. 

I find Tekton to be scalable. It leverages Kubernetes as its underlying system, allowing for scalability. For instance, if you need to run numerous concurrent jobs, Tekton can accommodate this requirement. My company has 70-100 users. 

We have deployed Tekton across multiple locations, departments, and cross-tenants. It has been used for about three or four years and is utilized by various teams to deploy applications in different clusters and locations.

Since the tool is open-source, we resolve issues ourselves. 

The installation process is straightforward, which stands out as one of Tekton's notable advantages. Deploying a YAML file onto your Kubernetes cluster is all it takes, and the installation on Kubernetes is quick. I believe it's achievable in less than a minute. In contrast, other tools like GitHub or Jenkins often require significant setup time.

There is minimal ongoing maintenance required. However, upgrading to the latest version can sometimes be challenging due to compatibility issues between Tekton and Kubernetes. Upgrading Tekton may also necessitate upgrading the Kubernetes cluster, which can incur additional maintenance costs.

The tool increases our operational costs because it requires repetitive tasks. Other tools like GitLab or Jenkins can reduce costs, as they eliminate much of this repetition. Currently, we often need to duplicate resources. For example, if we want to install based on manifests in a new cluster, we must copy all the base modules to another cluster and keep them in the repository. This duplication can increase the maintainability costs, as any changes to the code must be made in multiple places.

The tool is open-source and free to use. 

I wouldn't recommend the product to others. I recommend GitLab for anyone looking to work on mature CI/CD pipelines. I rate the overall product a four out of ten. 

I mostly use it for application deployments, it's a CI/CD tool. We use it for Kubernetes application deployment.

Through the API pipelines, through Tekton, it's very easy. We just have some configuration files, and it will handle the deployments smoother and faster compared to CI/CD 2.0. 

It's like Kubernetes nature. We don't require a lot of things for different environments. We can also customize and do the deployment.

People must have the knowledge. Once they have the knowledge, it's quite simple to use if the application is friendly.

It is quite good compared to the other applications. It is very faster than the other applications. It is a very good application.

There might be some compatibility issues and the need for customization during deployment, especially when deploying to different environments.

I've been using it from the last one and a half years.

The stability issues can be there. It is the core level who are doing some developers, they will do. The core level changes will be due to some core level changes; only they will affect it. 

If there is some customization, we can do it through Tekton also, we can do it. It won't be an issue.

I would rate the stability an eight out of ten. 

It's highly scalable, and it's highly available for applications, which are containerized applications. It will be highly available to speed up the application through Tekton.

I would rate the scalability an eight out of ten. 

The scalability means that in the case of the usage of that application, there will be some ins and outs, like some porting issues. There will be there. But, it is like from the deployment phase, they are using it, whether Cloud Run or on-premises, they are doing the deployment. Maybe it will differ, the things. So we need to check the compatibility. It will be available. It is compatible, but we need to customize it from that side. So the customization we need to do, that... that is that's why I have given it only eight. That's my reason.

We can do the deployments. It's based on whether they are deploying cloud or on-premises-related applications or something. It depends upon their code and their deployment style.

Initially, everyone will face challenges, but once they get to know about it, it would be very easy. It's just easy to understand. It's a Kubernetes-native application, so users must have some knowledge in Kubernetes, and users have some CI/CD knowledge. If they are using those, they can use Tekton.

Overall, I would rate it a nine out of ten. Once you are used to it, it is a very user-friendly application. 

Tekton is a great application that simplifies deployments, and customers are happy once their application is up and running, whether through a website or another method. So, it's highly available. If there are any issues, we can now easily deploy continuous updates, and it won't disrupt the application.

I use Tekton for DevOps work, where developed applications will be deployed into a cloud Kubernetes or any Kubernetes platform. This process includes all the Docker builds and deployment into the cluster and the notification after deployment or any triggers.

Tekton has been used for a project where the client wanted their application to be deployed in a Kubernetes cluster, and Tekton is the tool that enables this deployment process.

I like the setup of the dashboard. We can see all the tasks, the pipelines, and all the triggers in one place. That's the main use case that I like. Also, the Tekton Hub was very useful with a huge community. It was very useful for sourcing tasks and pipelines.

Tekton is a good product with all the features I need. There isn't anything that needs improvement.

I have been using Tekton for about one year.

The stability of Tekton depends on correct implementation. If implemented correctly, it's a very good product. I haven't faced any stability issues myself.

Most of the time, the community is really helpful. I didn't need to contact support because the Tekton Hub and its community provided adequate support.

Positive

We used Flux before. However, we do not really use it now. Now, we use ArgoCD to deploy applications across multiple systems.

The initial setup is straightforward. However, users need to follow the documented steps and version requirements.

Some colleagues in my office had prior experience with Tekton, so I had to help with its implementation.

We have documentation for Tekton content creation for the CNCF course that can be forwarded to help others start using Tekton. I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

We use Tekton primarily as a CI/CD tool. We develop the product, and after developing the product, we deploy it to the cloud. Before deployment, Tekton is used as a CI/CD tool to validate and check our test cases, vulnerabilities, and licensing issues. If any test cases are written, they will first validate Tekton cases. Once the test cases pass, it moves on to check for vulnerabilities and licensing issues using Fosa, which is one of our QA and Check Point tools.

Tekton has significantly improved our organization, especially in the area of reusability. When we moved to Tekton from Jenkins, I felt that the tasks could be reused for any number of pipelines within the same cluster, which was not the case with Jenkins. This reusability is a major benefit. Moreover, it has streamlined our CI/CD pipelines, making the deployment process much more efficient. Tekton provides a clean UI interface and allows us to run multiple tasks simultaneously, which has enhanced our efficiency and productivity.

The most valuable features of Tekton include the reusability of tasks, the clean UI interface, and the binding of services and secrets. The tasks can be reused for multiple pipelines, making it very efficient. The UI interface appears very clean and user-friendly. The binding of services and secrets is also very clear and well-organized.

One area where Tekton can improve is log management. Currently, logs are often deleted after a day, making it challenging to refer back to logs from previous pipelines. It would be beneficial to have access to logs for at least the past two or three days. 

Additionally, stability needs to be improved. Sometimes Tekton crashes or freezes during important deployments, and this can cause delays. Enhancing stability and log management would greatly benefit users.

I have been using Tekton for almost three years, approximately from the time our organization migrated from Jenkins to Tekton.

The stability of Tekton needs improvement. Occasionally, Tekton crashes or freezes during important deployments, which requires waiting and troubleshooting. This instability can be problematic, especially during critical launches.

Tekton's scalability is generally good, but there is room for improvement. The resource quotas are somewhat limited, and increasing the resource quotas could enhance scalability further. The ability to run pipelines in parallel is a good feature, but expanding the resources would improve scalability even more.

Our organization has sufficient technical support for Tekton. However, there are times when more support would be beneficial, especially when dealing with production launches and critical deployments.

Neutral

Before Tekton, we used Jenkins. Our organization decided to switch due to the cost, performance, and the ability to leverage new tools and applications.

The initial setup of Tekton was somewhat challenging. It took a while to understand the various components, such as service binding, role binding, and how to create routes and bind services. It was a bit difficult at first because I was the first person in my team to explore Tekton, but after gaining an understanding, it became much easier.

The deployment and implementation were handled within our organization. A few team members, including myself, explored the functionalities and shared our knowledge with the rest of the teams.

The return on investment from Tekton is primarily seen in time savings. Once the initial setup is complete, the automated processes reduce the time needed for deployments and streamline the workflow.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We are using Tekton for building some of our CI pipeline, continuous integration pipeline, as well as integrating some of our other pipelines, such as test pipelines.

In terms of cost savings, Tekton does not require licensing. If you have a Kubernetes or OpenShift environment, everything related to Tekton is free. Additionally, there are time-saving benefits as Tekton makes it easy to bring up pipelines quickly, which is particularly useful if the environment is lost.

The most beneficial aspect of Tekton is its compatibility with containerized applications. Since I am skilled in Docker, Kubernetes, and OpenShift, Tekton aligns well with these technologies. Unlike Jenkins, which requires an external node, Tekton eliminates that need. 

The installation process is seamless, requiring fewer resources compared to Jenkins. Tekton supports CLI and graphical user interfaces, is Kubernetes-native, and is particularly suited for event-driven cases. Each component is managed as code in YAML, making it easy to maintain and set up pipelines in different infrastructures.

Tekton lacks integration capabilities compared to other CI/CD tools like Jenkins and Travis. For instance, Jenkins offers plugins that facilitate easy integration with other software delivery tools. 

Tekton needs to improve its endpoint communication routes for better integration. Another area for improvement is security management. 

Jenkins offers RBAC for user access management, which Tekton lacks. Additionally, Tekton currently has no backup mechanism for execution logs, which puts run-related data at risk of loss.

I have been working with Tekton, along with Argo, for the last four years.

Tekton is stable. I have never encountered scenarios where Tekton-based components were in a degraded state or not working.

I have not worked on Tekton from a scalability perspective so I cannot comment on its scalability.

I raised a feature request for parallel execution at the step level in the official Tekton forum but did not receive a solution. Technically, the support was skilled, and I would rate them a seven out of ten. However, from the perspective of the solutions provided, I was not satisfied.

Neutral

In our discussions, we frequently compared Tekton with Jenkins due to Jenkins' widespread use and its robust plugin ecosystem.

Initially, we deployed Tekton using the required YAML files. Currently, we deploy using the operator, making the process about 70% easier with some issues.

I deployed Tekton individually. Not many people were involved in the process.

Tekton does not require licensing fees. If there is a Kubernetes or OpenShift environment, everything related to Tekton is free. This results in significant cost savings compared to licensed tools like Jenkins, Travis, or Bamboo.

We compared Tekton with Jenkins and Travis, noting that Jenkins and Travis have better integration features but Tekton offers advantages in resource requirements and ease of deployment.

I recommend Tekton for CI/CD pipelines due to its event-driven capabilities and Kubernetes-native approach. The setup, maintenance, and cost benefits are significant. Tekton's approach to managing pipelines as code ensures that you can easily recreate and maintain your pipelines across any supported infrastructure.

I'd rate the solution six out of ten.