Tekton Reviews

Generally, we are using Tekton for deployments instead of Jenkins. We create pipelines in Tekton for a number of services, each with different logs and requirements, especially in our DevOps practices. I have been using this Tekton pipeline for nearly six months.

The main benefits we have seen from using Tekton include saving time compared to Jenkins. The user interface is easier to use, and there are no plugins required for installation, unlike Jenkins. Time savings and ease of use are significant advantages.

Tekton has a user interface that facilitates time savings, making it more user-friendly than Jenkins. It is easier to handle and eliminates the need for plugin installations.

The user interface of Tekton could be improved. Sometimes, it takes more time during production deployments than expected.

I have been using the solution for nearly six months.

Tekton is stable, easy to use, and currently provides good stability.

Tekton is scalable, and most of our team members are using the Tekton pipeline.

As of now, I haven't asked for technical support. I would approach technical support if I encounter any problems.

Positive

Before Tekton, we used Jenkins. Tekton is better than Jenkins in terms of user interface and ease of integration without the need for plugins.

The initial setup took about one week, and there were some doubts on how to operate and execute deployments. But after learning about the tools, the setup was smooth, and everything was configured properly.

Four teams were involved in the deployment process: the ECS team, tenant ops team, DevOps team, and development team.

There are efficiency gains due to time savings in pipeline setup compared to Jenkins. This is a major point of efficiency for Tekton.

I would recommend Tekton to other users who are considering its implementation. It's better compared to Jenkins.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I use Tekton generally for CI purposes and automation APIs.

We have created a Helm template for Tekton, and we're currently working on scripts. This allows us to create pipelines on the fly, which has significantly streamlined our workflow.

I have full control over it, actually, in my team. Another thing is that Tekton is based on Kubernetes. In Kubernetes, we have the concept of cron jobs which run on a time-to-time basis. In Tekton, we have the concept called task or task runs. We can expose an API and use the trigger and trigger-binding concept, allowing us to trigger tasks whenever needed. This mechanism is very nice.

RBAC is really needed for Tekton. Also, if you have too many PVCs and don't clean them up, it may stop working due to the limited number of PVCs you can create in a cluster.

I have been using it for the past two years.

Tekton is a stable product. One issue we might run into is when there are too many PVCs that haven't been cleaned up. We have mitigated this by creating a CronJob that runs every midnight to clear those tasks.

Tekton is scalable if well-planned. However, it is not a plug-and-play solution for now. You need to write the tasks according to your business case, which might differ from team to team or service to service.

While setting up, I was initially active on their Slack channel where I was able to get help. They were responsive.

Neutral

We were using Jenkins before Tekton.

The initial setup was daunting and took me four months to set it up and get the flow. There is a steep learning curve, especially with concepts like event listeners, event triggers, and trigger binding.

Tekton was initially very daunting, and it took me a long time to get the flow. However, once you get it, it’s awesome.

I'd rate the solution six 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 the platform to manage development pipelines. Our infrastructure is integrated with Kubernetes, and we utilize it within an OpenShift environment for automation. I have developed various pipelines and plugins for both front-end and back-end applications, including Angular for the front end and Quarkus, a Java framework for microservices, for the back end. The platform supports tasks such as code cloning, testing, and deployment by integrating SonarQube, Argo, and Nexus tools.

The product's best feature is its ease of implementation. It is well-suited for microservices architecture and integrates seamlessly with Docker and other tasks. The orientation towards microservices makes managing different tasks and projects efficient.

Initially, working with YAML configuration can be challenging using the solution. 

I have been using Tekton for two years.

I have not encountered any stability issues with the platform.

Approximately four people in our organization use Tekton. It is a scalable platform. 

The setup process is simplified by its integration with Kubernetes and its examples for various tasks.

I suggest utilizing available tasks and resources, such as copying and using tools like ChatGPT, to write and configure tasks. 

The platform is user-friendly and provides good support for managing different pipelines.

I rate it an eight out of ten. 

I primarily use Tekton for continuous integration purposes. When we build applications, we use Tekton for CI. For deployments, we use ArgoCD. Most of the time, we use Tekton to facilitate the CI process.

Tekton is primarily a time-saving solution. While it does take some time to set up initially, it is very efficient once running. It helps manage deployments and separates processes accordingly, which benefits both developers and me. Developers don't have to worry about the deployment or integration part as Tekton takes care of those aspects, making it easier for me to manage the pipeline.

Tekton allows you to categorize tasks according to your needs and minimizes the amount of code needed. For instance, you can separate tasks to suit your requirements. Additionally, when integrating with Terraform, Tekton makes it easy to trigger only specific parts of the infrastructure, which is beneficial for ops engineers.

For infrastructure deployment, integration is somewhat complex, especially when using Terraform with Tekton. It would be beneficial if this process were simplified.

I have been working with Tekton for about one year now.

Sometimes, when there are updates and patches, it can cause issues. For example, building a Docker image may require changing the base image due to upgrade issues. However, understanding Tekton properly helps in resolving such issues easily.

Tekton is very scalable. It's particularly effective for managing resources across multiple clusters and regions, integrating resources from different cloud providers.

Before Tekton, I used Jenkins and GitHub Actions for CI/CD pipelines. I also used Bitbucket pipelines for smaller web-related projects. These options required maintaining multiple pipeline files, unlike Tekton, which allows for streamlined categorization and management.

For infrastructure deployment, we categorize each Terraform file according to the specific components needed, such as VPCs and subnets. We maintain separate repositories for Tekton files and deploy specific components by providing the necessary paths and executing the appropriate files. Depending on whether it's a development or production environment, we maintain the appropriate pipelines.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

I use it for the CI/CD pipeline. The client wanted to create a pipeline for this workflow to be deployed in his kubernetes cluster whenever he made changes. We had three different pipelines for three stages: one for dev, one for production, and the other for QA. The client was unfamiliar with this process, so he wanted us to create three different environments to eliminate manual processes.

With the help of Tekton Hub, we accessed example tasks that were very useful for everyone involved. From that hub, we took a sample task and created our own. It was straightforward to set up. We built the software image, and once that was done, we implemented the deployment process in the same pipeline, where the Helm Chart gets updated with the image name using the check command.

We also integrated the branch nodes through the request process, making it easy to trigger deployments cleanly. Compared to other tools like Argo CD and Argo Workflows, we found them very helpful, as they require different UIs and workflows.

The most valuable features are trigger functionality and the dashboard because they easily highlight our errors. Tekton allows us to see both CI/CD in one place. Unlike other products, Tekton makes managing the entire CI/CD process much easier than separating it into different parts. 

Tekton could use better documentation. We struggled due to the lack of clear documentation for triggers. Everything else was documented very well, but that section needs improvement.

I have been using Tekton for one year.

Tekton is very stable. They release a beta version approximately every two months, but they maintain the stable version until they are confident that the beta version is ready for use.

Scaling up and down is straightforward. The cleanup process in the pipeline section is also very easy. We can quickly delete any tasks.

We never had a chance to contact the support team.

Tekton is open source, so we never encountered any pricing issues. We were able to use it free of cost from end to end.

I was part of the DevOps team, and once our developers completed their code, it was easy for us to trigger workflows. When they wanted to deploy to different environments, like from development to QA and then to production, Tekton made it very user-friendly. Developers often lack knowledge of operations, so they don’t always know how to trigger processes. With Tekton, we managed to achieve this seamlessly without requiring developer intervention.

Tekton is easy to use for someone familiar with the CI/CD process and who has experience with manual authorization and deployment in Kubernetes. There may be a learning curve for beginners, but anyone with basic knowledge of Docker and Kubernetes will find it easy.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine 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 utilizing Tekton as a pipeline tool for their CI/CD process, which involves connecting GitLab to Nexus, then Nexus to Argo CD, and ultimately to Kubernetes.

We are a Kubernetes-centric company, so it's advantageous for us to use a cloud-native, Kubernetes-driven solution. Tekton is serverless and runs on OpenShift, and we leverage Tekton to take full advantage of the Kubernetes features such as running and scaling the solution in PaaS.

There is a need for substantial improvement in connecting with other tools and open-source software. Configuring Tekton requires a deep understanding of Kubernetes, which can be difficult for developers. Furthermore, there is no existing template that gives defaults for developers to build a pipeline, making it challenging for them to use. In conclusion, Tekton is not particularly user-friendly for developers and has room for improvement.

I would like Tekton to change its dashboard to be similar to the one GitLab offers.

I have been using the solution for one year.

We are not relying heavily on Tekton or OpenShift for stability since our applications used in the DevOps culture are not critical ones, thus reducing the risk.

Tekton is a scalable product that we have not yet taken full advantage of. Although our needs are relatively simple, focusing on DevOps delivery, we have not reached the desired level of use.

Setting up Tekton initially was not a simple process. We did not choose to use Tekton, but rather it was selected due to its availability. IBM promotes Tekton and its integration with OpenShift, so when we set up OpenShift a year and a half ago, we also set up Tekton. We have already implemented GitLab Runner for multiple projects, replacing Tekton. GitLab Runner has been found to be advantageous for developers, due to its ease of use. As a result, we are now running two distinct pipelines for different projects, with the majority of developers preferring GitLab Runner over Tekton.

I give the initial setup a five out of ten.

The implementation of Tekton took some time due to operational challenges, rather than a lack of technical knowledge. These challenges included a lack of understanding of Tekton and the availability of the infrastructure personnel. The overall implementation took us around one month.

We collaborated with IBM and Red Hat vendors to set up the OpenShift PaaS solution. To ensure a successful outcome, we conducted a proof-of-concept (POC) in parallel with the vendors.

I give the solution a five out of ten.

We have around 50 people using the solution in our organization.

From a usage perspective, people are trying to move up from Tekton to GitLab in our organization.

Using Tekton depends on the strength of our Red Hat resources. I recommend GitLab over Tekton.