The primary use case of the solution is container orchestration for a microservices-based architecture.
I worked on deployment in the cloud and on-premises.
The primary use case of the solution is container orchestration for a microservices-based architecture.
I worked on deployment in the cloud and on-premises.
The solution has improved our organization by providing a computing layer abstraction between the cloud provider and on-premise. This has given us higher consistency in management and deployment strategies. The solution also reduces the effect of discrepancies between development and production environments.
The most valuable feature of the platform is the auto-healing and auto-scaling ability to offload to the platform tasks that were previously managed by humans.
There is a large ecosystem of products surrounding Kubernetes, making it difficult to identify the right solution due to the vast number of options.
I have been using the solution for six years.
The solution is a stable mature platform.
Scaling is a straightforward and standard process. With the integration provided by the cloud provider, we can even enable automatic scalability.
Setting up without Kubernetes provider services is complex.
I give the solution a nine out of ten.
There is a large amount of overhead associated with maintenance, as we have to maintain everything from the operating system to the application. The cycle of updates and patches for the platform itself is very frequent, with a new version released every four months and various security patches in between. This makes the maintenance task very large if we have to do it ourselves.
The main benefit of Kubernetes is that it is currently the standard for container orchestration. Kubernetes is available across different cloud providers, providing consistency in management and portability that is not available with other products.
In the beginning, the solution may feel as if it has a lot of moving parts that are confusing and overwhelming.
We use Kubernetes to orchestrate the containers for deploying our Docker images to Kubernetes. I'm an Azure DevOps lead.
Kubernetes has some advanced features like auto-scaling and a good self-healing facility. If Kubernetes runs in the form of ports and one of the ports dies, a new one automatically appears. These advanced features help us to deploy our application and makes life easier.
I find the auto-scaling feature very good because rather than manually decreasing the number of nodes, we can define the threshold.
The UI should be improved. It would be helpful if it was more graphical. Kubernetes currently runs perfectly with the Linux environment because it has Docker as a container runtime, and Docker works perfectly with the Linux operating system. It should also be able to run with the MacBook and Windows OS, similar to Linux and it would be helpful if they would include this in the next release.
I've been using this solution for four years.
The solution is stable.
If you're using a cloud service provider there's no problem with scalability. When there's a newer version, we'll upgrade our Kubernetes cluster to the latest version.
We previously had an on-prem solution using some tools like ClearCase, which is a centralized repository we used to work under. Given that everyone is migrating to cloud, we've done the same, migrating our applications to AWS and Azure Kubernetes.
Although it doesn't take long to deploy, Kubernetes is difficult to set up even if it's the small, mini one-node Kubernetes cluster. For a cloud deployment, it's either Azure or AWS. The cloud service provider will take care of the master node. We currently have a DevOps team of seven people. If we have a big cluster, we can it into multiple clusters, one for the Dev team, one for the QA team, and one for production; each team can work on its cluster and deployment can be done quickly.
Pricing depends on the cloud service provider. Comparing AWS and Azure, Google Cloud has a much better pricing model, as does Linode. We receive a monthly licensing account.
It's important to learn the architecture of Kubernetes and know what each and every component of Kubernetes does. It makes the deployment easier. Whether or not you choose Kubernetes depends on your use case. If you have a business model that requires minimal changes with fixed requirements then Kubernetes might not be the way to go. If you're constantly needing to make changes, Kubernetes is a great solution.
I rate the solution eight out of 10.
We use Kubernetes to run some content as SaaS-based applications, and there are a few more in the pipeline to migrate from the IBM MQ server and mounting to containerization.
The best thing about Kubernetes is orchestration. It is very good. We will not see much downtime unless there are some human errors. We do not see much downtime or issues with the container or automation.
I'm a beginner, and I recently started working with Kubernetes. As of now, I don't see any bugs. However, it would be better if it could be deployed without coding.
I have been using Kubernetes for about six months.
Kubernetes is stable for now. Since we are in the process of migrating, I cannot tell for sure. But my friends have been working on it and do not have any problems.
Kubernetes is a scalable solution. That is the reason we do not see much downtime. It is always available as needed.
Because I have an infrastructure background, it is difficult for me to code some parts. So, I depended on some experts here to deploy this solution. It is not very difficult for them.
I would tell potential users that Kubernetes is a very good solution and they should use it.
On a scale from one to ten, I would give Kubernetes a nine.
Kubernetes is our platform of choice for running things in production, applications, and the like. Everything we build runs on Kubernetes, it's our platform of choice. I'm the principal devs engineer.
Kubernetes has improved our time to market because it's quite lightweight and easy to install.
The most important feature is container orchestration. Kubernetes provides us with a mechanism to deploy or run in an automated fashion across nodes. I don't need to worry if it's running on node one or node two, it's all taken care of by Kubernetes.
They have a very minimal interface to do certain things and that could be enhanced so that someone who is not as comfortable on CLI can also use the interface and play around with the cluster. Commercial offerings like Red Hat OpenShift offer it, but the open-source community edition from CNCF doesn't. I'd like to see an incubating project there. It's not one organization that is contributing to Kubernetes, it's a CNCF project, i.e. an open-source contributing forum.
They could possibly promote some data APIs to the production stage. They have a lot of APIs which are in beta stage which they continue to test. Perhaps it's time to upgrade them to a more product-release stage. I think it would offer peace of mind to customers in terms of stability.
I've been using this solution for four years.
This is a stable product if you are on a long-term support release. It's quite widely tested and used.
Kubernetes is highly scalable. We have around 150 users and it's used daily, mainly by developers and engineers.
Kubernetes has a very active and vibrant community forum and people can join Slack Workspace and ask questions there. They announce new releases there too and people help out. If there are issues, you can open tickets, open GitHub issues and things like that.
We previously worked with Apache Hadoop but it was becoming somewhat cumbersome and complex to install.
Deployment complexity depends on the use case. I can install it on my laptop and it's easy but if it's being installed on production it needs to be set up in a cluster formation. That kind of deployment is moderately complex, and that's where we come into the picture, providing the automation for that. For someone without any knowledge in the area, deployment might require a third-party consultant or an integrator to help with that.
I have some basic experience with Rancher and Red Hat OpenShift, which has a very nice graphical interface. An administrator, developer, or even a user can do a lot of stuff other than just seeing what applications are running. It's something that separates the commercial offerings from the community version of Kubernetes. If there were something like that in the open-source version, it would be a game changer. Of course, the commercial version also comes with hours of tech support and guides.
We use Kubernetes for deployment of TIBCO software analyst. We then use Rancher to deploy the Kubernetes cluster.
Kubernetes is POD technology so you can run the number of containers you need to host one by one and use similar microservices for the containers. This is a great feature of Kubernetes. The product provides auto rollback functionality and a scale-up and scale-down functionality. These are the main features that we didn't previously have. For scaling or restarting PODs or any services is very easy. We can configure the commands to easily scale up and scale down, based on the load requirement. If some business servers added more load, then we increase the POD, and increase the services.
Kubernetes lacks some flexibility compared to other products such as OpenShift.
I've been using this solution for four years.
The solution is stable.
The initial setup is straightforward. We have our own Terraform script to deploy the Ansible. It provisions the orchestration and deploys Kubernetes and we install Rancher over Kubernetes and deploy the entire orchestration. We don't use any third parties. We carry out our own maintenance because we don't want to be dependent on third parties.
We use the open source solution and only move to the commercial platform for the purpose of node vulnerability. We use Instana and Qualys agents for security monitoring vulnerability purposes.
For anyone wanting to use this solution, it's important to know the basics of Linux. In addition, Docker plays an important role and it's worth checking the YAML files before moving to Kubernetes.
I rate this solution nine out of 10.
We are an IT services company, and I am part of a team of DevOps engineers deploying Kubernetes for customers. We deploy it on a virtual machine, so you can deploy it anywhere.
The use case depends on the customer's deployment. For example, if the customer has microservices for lots of applications, they can use Kubernetes to segregate new microservices into different segments. They're not using a monolithic application. The same application has different components.
The best feature is autoscaling. It's effortless to use for scaling deployment parts, CI/CD, etc.
Kubernetes should improve its consistency across different types of deployments. My customers tell me that they get much better performance when Kubernetes is deployed on VM versus PaaS services from Azure.
I have been using Kubernetes for about two and a half years.
Kubernetes is highly stable.
The scalability is an excellent aspect of Kubernetes. It can scale up horizontally and vertically. You can scale by cluster and node. Scalabiity is the best part of Kubernetes.
We have never contacted Kubernetes support. If have a problem, we raise a ticket to Microsoft, and their engineers will help us.
Deploying Kubernetes is straightforward. The total deployment time depends on the number of applications and repositories we have on that day. If you are only setting up Kubernetes, it takes about five to 10 minutes, excluding the front-end IP, etc.
Kubernetes is an open-source tool, so you only need to pay for your infrastructure. If you have your own data center, you can install Kubernetes and containerize the server, but if you're using PaaS services from Azure, so you must pay Azure for your utilizing their services. The total cost of ownership depends on your configuration.
I rate Kubernetes eight out of 10. If your team has experience with containerization, they should work on Kubernetes. It will make development and deployment easier.
I recommend first containerizing your application and running it in a dev environment to test it and get some experience before implementing it in a production environment.
The most valuable features of Kubernetes are the integration with Docker and there is plenty of documentation available. We work with Docker as a container, and it is more integrated with Docker than VMware Tanzu.
Kubernetes could improve by having better integration with VMware solutions.
I have been using Kubernetes for approximately three years.
Kubernetes is stable. They are the leader in their category.
If the platform for Kubernetes is VMware it is not scalable, but if the platform is Linux, it's scalable.
There are approximately 15 developers and five network administrators using the solution in my organization.
The technical support from Kubernetes is good.
I have used VMware Tanzu previously and I would like to work with it more because it is better integrated with other VMware solutions, such as vCenter, vSphere, vSAN, and NSX.
I have done the initial setup of Kubernetes many times, for me the setup is easy. If I am focused I can complete the full implementation in one or two days.
We have received a return on investment from using Kubernetes.
The price of Kubernetes could be lower. However, it is less expensive than VMware Tanzu. Additionally, technical support is expensive. The overall cost of the solution is approximately $1,000 annually.
Kubernetes is the leader in this category, and are very good. However, if the platform they want to implement is VMware, I would advise using VMware 10.
I rate Kubernetes an eight out of ten.
I use the product for microservices.
I am impressed with the product's coupling of resources and flexibility.
The tool needs to improve its UI. The tool is very complex and basic.
I have been using the solution for six months.
We haven't encountered any issues with the product.
I would rate the product's scalability an eight out of ten.
The solution's setup is difficult and we need to write a lot of commands. It takes one day to complete the setup. We require two people for the solution's deployment and five people for its maintenance.
I am using the solution's open-source version.
I would rate the product a seven out of ten.