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.