Google Kubernetes Engine Reviews

I am just starting with it. I am testing different platforms. I've done some deployments, and with some samples, I've tried to install the Kubernetes application.

I am using its latest version.

It's easy to manage and deploy. It's the best. 

I can have some controls through some parameters, and it's very good. 

There is a limitation for our infrastructure. It's very complex to see in one dashboard all the components and all the behavior on performance. I am looking for some additional tools for that. If I want to check the disk or file storage, it gets complex. There should be an integrated dashboard so that we can manage everything through a single pane.

I've been using this solution for two or three months.

It's stable.

I haven't yet used their support.

Its pricing is good. They bill us only per user. That's nice.

I'd rate it an eight out of ten.

All of our clients are using GKE lightly. The companies are big, but the usage is small.

GKE's plugin management and configuration sync are excellent features. The amount of data it provides is good, and I've been able to integrate it with the things I need.

The user interface is a bit confusing sometimes. You need to navigate between the various consoles we have. It's hard to figure out where things are.  It's frustrating. The documentation could be a bit better.

I have only been using GKE for a couple of months, but I have been working with Kubernetes for about six years and EKS for a year. 

GKE is scalable.

We were previously using basic Kubernetes that we set up and managed ourselves. I've also used EKS.

Setting up GKE is somewhat complex. There are lots of concepts that are involved and many options to consider. At the same time, you can easily automate it. It's easy to interact with the client and the APIs, and the documentation is good. Sometimes it is confusing, but you can find most of the stuff that you need.

I think EKS and AWS are very similar usages. I don't know if one is superior to the other. Google might be better at working with identities for workloads and resource integration. I think it's a bit better and easier than AWS's IM.

I rate Google Kubernetes Engine eight out of 10.

Google Kubernetes Engine's most valuable feature is container deployment.

An area in which Google Kubernetes Engine could improve is configuration.

I've been working with Google Kubernetes Engine for a few months.

Google Kubernetes Engine is stable.

Generally, Google Kubernetes Engine is easy to scale, but it can be difficult in some cases.

The initial setup is generally straightforward but can become a bit difficult with more complex projects.

The price for Google Kubernetes Engine could be lower - I'd rate its pricing at three out of five.

I'd rate Google Kubernetes Engine as eight out of ten.

Google Kubernetes Engine's most valuable features are microservices and its acquisition rate, which is very useful for scaling perspective.

The user interface could be improved. In the next release, I'd like to see better notifications.

I've been using Google Kubernetes Engine for a few years. 

Kubernetes is stable because it has scalable architecture, so if any part goes down, it starts from the other parts. 

Kubernetes is scalable.

The initial setup was simple.

I would rate Kubernetes' pricing four out of five.

I also evaluated VMware, which is more expensive than Kubernetes.

I would give Kubernetes a rating of eight out of ten.

Google Kubernetes Engine is used for orchestrating Docker containers. We have 30 or 40 customers working with this solution now. We'll probably see 10 to 15 percent growth in the number of customers using Google Kubernetes Engine in the future. 

We've been using Kubernetes Engine for five years.

Google Kubernetes Engine is less stable in some highly complex deployments with many nodes. However, those are probably edge cases.

Google Kubernetes Engine is scalable 

The ease of deployment for Google Kubernetes Engine is about average.  

Google offers yearly and monthly subscriptions. 

We don't prefer Google over Amazon or any other Kubernetes solution. It depends on the technology stack that our customers choose based on project needs. It's not better than the others.

I rate Google Kubernetes Engine eight out of 10. 

This is Prophaze deployed in Kubernetes. So we have a Kubernetes. For example, Uber, they have all their sectors deployed in Kubernetes. There should be a native production for Kubernetes. We can have a separate cloud security solution for Kubernetes. Your solution has to be in Kubernetes. Because it should be a Kubernetes solution. So the WAF, in general, can be deployed in Kubernetes as a network solution.

It's like instantaneous scaling up. If you have a lot of traffic coming in, things like RAM and hard disk are easily able to scale.

It should support the latest GP use. I also think it should support load balancing.

I have worked with Google Kubernetes Engine for about three years. We are using version 10.

It's pretty much stable. I would say 99.9%, excellent.

Google Kubernetes Engine is very scalable, in fact, that is one of the best features.

For Google and Amazon, the Kubernetes is along the line of normal support. You email them or you can call them, but email is the preferable way of contacting them.

I heard about the normal service. Some of the eCommerce stuff, size or any of the other sites, you have a lot of traffic coming to your size. It is easy to buy if you have little traffic. You'll be able to buy and resell or if you still have money you can buy you two together. So, if you look at the last five years, people started to think about the cloud. You buy a cloud instance, you customize your configuration. People are now starting to look at Docker and Kubernetes.

The initial setup of Kubernetes Engine is quite straightforward. With just a few clicks, you can have it up and running.

We do everything from scratch here in our company. We have complete control over our selection. We use three people for maintenance.

Currently, it costs around $1000 per month which sorted our deployment. So once we get more clients, having a huge suffix, costs can go up. 

My advice to anybody considering this solution is to understand that you need to have everything ready before implementation. You need to have a migration strategy.

I would rate Google Kubernetes Engine an eight out of ten.

Kubernetes Engine is a platform that spins off applications so they can be run at scale at a high level.

We are currently migrating from on-premises to the cloud version.

First of all, it's easier to control and manage the containers at all levels. It becomes easy to create CD, or continuous delivery, and it's easier to scale.

Kubernetes Engines is easy to deploy and manage.

There are some security issues, but it might just be because we are not up to speed yet as much as we should be and so we haven't found it in the documentation yet. That's why I don't want to confuse this. Still, it could be a little bit easier to understand and implement.

They could also probably improve their monitoring features. We mostly don't use the graphical display. We use command lines, so this isn't a big issue for us.

For me, Kubernetes Engines was pretty stable.

This is a very scalable product. We are increasing our use because our customer has a lot of products and he wants to migrate out of the application to cloud. He will use Kubernetes to do this.

As I work with different customers, it was a customer decision. I have no choice. I used Amazon Container Services, ACS, before. It was not bad, but I like Kubernetes better.

The initial setup was very easy because it's like a Google platform as a service. It's just one button to set it up. The deployment took only a few minutes.

Management and deployment of a lot of containers could be very easy. It saves us time.

I think Kubernetes is really a fast developing and easy to use platform.

I would probably rate it as nine out of ten since it does have a little bit of room for improvement.

We primarily use this solution for authorization and service deployment.

The CLI commands are good.

The network configuration has to be simplified.

I would like to see a more user-friendly interface. Currently, it is a little complex, and the technical guides are not easy to follow. Compared to other applications, the documentation needs a lot of improvement.

Cluster-based software support needs to be improved.

Stability-wise, this solution is really good. 

Scalability for this solution depends on the application. For normal microservice-related applications where there is no clustering, it is really evolved and easy to scale. However, for cluster-based applications such as MariaDB, or other cluster-based tools, scalability is complex and it needs to have more documentation.

We are using the solution for managing deployments, so there are only five or six users.

We have not subscribed to outside help for this solution. We have been using Google to search the forums for issues that we encounter. There is no defined place where I can refer problems and find answers. 

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

The initial setup is not straightforward. While it is not too difficult, there are some complexities. For example, sometimes when we add to the network there is an error and something goes wrong, which means that we have to start again, from scratch.

This is an open source solution, so there is no pricing or licensing.

I evaluated Docker Swarm, but compared to that, Kubernetes is very good. Docker Swarm is only for small applications.

This is a really good product for independent applications or microservices. The downtime is minimal, and we have even made it zero downtime for deployment. However, when they are cluster-based applications, it is really complex.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is to arrange the correct CICD (Continuous Integration / Continous Deployment) conveyor to provide for continuous changes in production.

The improvement is mainly connected to the speed of change implementation. In the case of the automatic convenor, we spent less time due to the automation of the process. Before using this solution, it was a lot of manual tasks and a lot of people participated in the process.

The most valuable feature is the horizontal staging of applications. Other important features include isolation of applications and more effective usage of infrastructure due to less consumption of resources by containers.

I think that security is an important point, and there should be additional features for the evaluation of data in containers that will create a more secure environment for usage in multi-parent models.

We have not seen any signs of instability, and have an optimistic view of the solution.

Scalability is an important feature of this solution, and we are happy with it.

We have approximately one hundred people using the solution. It is mostly developers and quality assurance people who are working on the preparation for CICD.

Once we move to production, next year, our usage will increase.

I think technical support is good enough.

We did not use an integrated solution prior to this. Rather, it was done in a more traditional way. This included virtual machine creation, installation of additional software, and connection to an external CICD conveyor, etc. We are switching because we are interested in more widely using continuous technology.

Our motivation for switching is to simplify creating a CICD process. We have a lot of small changes and after testing, we will be using an automated process for product delivery.

We are currently in a test phase and are estimating the feasibility of moving this to production. Our plan is to finalize testing by the end of this year and move the solution to production at the beginning of next year.

We have two people working the maintenance of this solution, but frankly speaking, it is not enough. We are planning to improve our skills and capacity and expand these resources.

We communicate directly with somebody who is part of OpenShift. They are top guys and have enough experience to help us build our system. It's no problem.

We do not have a local team in Russia, but at some point, that may change and we will use a local integrator. 

We are planning to reach a positive ROI using this solution.

We are planning to use external support, and hire a commercial partner for it. Usually, this is about twenty percent of the solution.

We have been watching what is happening the market, and for some time it has been obvious that Kubernetes has the most followers and most potential. This is why we are starting with Kubernetes from the beginning.

My advice is not to implement this solution unless there is a genuine demand for it from the business side. It can be useful to start from the bottom of the infrastructure and take it to the highest level because it requires changes in the development and business levels to work with this technology.

I think that there is enough documentation available to start to work with this product. The technology provides a very good opportunity to grow and improve.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

I use the tool to host a SaaS application.We also provision the clusters to help students learn how to use Kubernetes.

The solution is more user-friendly than AWS or Azure. I can also easily scale out the service in the future when the number of customers grows. GKE is the leader of Kubernetes service and it can be easily updated. I love the tool's user interfaces. 

I use the Firebase tool with GKE and it would be helpful if the solution can give notifications when we reach the budget limit. 

I have been working with the solution for more than 8 years. 

The product is stable. 

The tool is scalable and we have around 3000 users for the product. 

The tech support's service is good. 

Neutral

The solution's setup is very easy. 

The solution's ROI is good. 

The solution's price is reasonable. 

I would rate the product a nine out of ten.