Kubernetes Reviews

This solution is deployed on cloud with Azure.

Managing the container was a challenge. The cloud-managed Kubernetes allow us to take care of a big system and deployment and container management without having a big operational team.

It's still difficult to manage based on my experience. There are a lot of things that need to be done to get it up and running initially. It's very complex. The whole system required a big team, and that's why we were using the managed version. If we were not using the managed version, then it would have been very difficult to manage the system. Overall, it's very powerful, but there are also a lot of complexities to manage.

In the version that we're currently using, we still have to pull in a lot for different tools, like the distribution data, distribution tracing tool, etc. For it to be fully functional, we still have to deploy more tools into it. It should come with more default rules built into it for log aggregation, distributed tracing, and monitoring, so they can definitely improve upon those things. If they had better tool integration for monitoring and log aggregation, then it would be much better.

I've been using this solution for two years.

It's stable.

It's scalable. There are two different ways you can do it. You can manage it yourself, and then you're responsible for scalability software. But if you use a cloud solution, Google GKE and Azure have AKS and AWS had EKS. If we use those kinds of services, the scalability becomes easier to manage. It's definitely scalable, but even that part is very complex to manage unless you're using a cloud managed service.

It was very complex to set up the initial structure for Kubernetes. Using managed services made it simpler.

I would rate this solution 9 out of 10.

The following is a list of the cases when I prefer Kubernetes for application hosting:

1. Micro-services infrastructure + possible use of some service meshes, like Istio or Linkerd.
2. Cost efficiency; we are using Kubernetes in conjunction with AWS Spot Instances or Google Cloud preemptible VMs.
3. Standards-compliant infrastructures like HIPAA, PCI SOC, DSS, and ISOxxxx.
4. Highly-available or fault-tolerant infrastructures, due to some sort of self-recovery and self-healing.
5. Infrastructures with automatically scalable applications.

It's unified our technology stack across on-premises infrastructures and public clouds, including Amazon Web Services, Azure, and Google Cloud Platform. Kubernetes provides great integrations with other open-source tools, like Prometheus, Grafana, Elastic Stack, Fluentd, OAuth providers, and others.

Kubernetes distributions are also great because we adopt the platforms for different requirements. These include the AWS Elastic Kubernetes Service, Google Kubernetes Engine, Azure Kubernetes Engine, Rancher, etc.

It allows us to build custom-tailored infrastructures from small to big companies and satisfy various requirements, such as providing a proper level of RPO, RTO, scalability, cost-efficiency, and support high availability/fault tolerance.

The most valuable features of Kubernetes are:

1. Containers self-healing and self-recovery.
   
2. Unifications allow for internal Kubernetes components to be migrated between Kubernetes providers in an easier manner.
   
3. Kubernetes as a service from the major cloud providers including AWS, Google Cloud, Azure, Digital Ocean, IBM, etc. Kubernetes as a service helps in infrastructure migration from on-premises to cloud, or from cloud to cloud.
   
4. This product has a rich toolset from the community including CNI plug-ins, Helm packages, operators, dashboards, various integrations, etc.
   
5. Built-in scaling features, it's really great!

Some improvements that we would like to see are:

1. Have reacher built-in features and probably incorporate some features from the community toolset, like KEDA for pod scaling.
   
2. There are even more tools from the community for monitoring, log collectors, authorization, and authentication.
   
3. Have some sort of simplifications for wider adoption.
   
4. This product should have a more advanced built-in scheduler that uses real application metrics in the scheduling strategy.
   
5. Wider integration with cloud providers in terms of volumes and key management services.
   
6. Add support of traffic encryption option from container to container, and Ingress to the container.

We have been using Kubernetes as a self-hosted service, managed by external solutions, like Rancher, or a cloud-provider managed service (Azure AKS, Google GKE, Amazon EKS) for between three and four years.

This product is pretty stable, especially in the managed service option, but as with all platforms, it has some issues. As an example, during an update Kubernetes version on Amazon EKS from 1.17 to 1.18 Amazon duplicates workers count from 4 to 12 (should be from 4 to 8), upgrades takes more than 1 hour (should be about 10-20 minutes) and suddenly this leads to the short-time interruption of some applications during re-scheduling. In the end, we were forced to write our own rolling update scripts for updating the Kubernetes version on the nodes instances, which completes the upgrade in 10 minutes without application downtime. But again, this is an issue related to managed Kubernetes (in particular, Amazon EKS platform).

Great scalability, especially for the small and mid-size setup with fewer than 100 nodes.

We have used various platforms for managing Docker containers, such as Rancher, Azure App Service, and Portainer.

The first adoption was hard because the Kubernete's learning curve is pretty high.

The in-house team only.

It's open-source and free, so pricing should not be applied here.

Google Kubernetes Engine is free in the simplest setup, AWS Kubernetes Engine costs about $50 (depending on the region), in a three master setup, so it's almost the same as the cost of the EC2 instances and it's totally fine from my point of view.

We prefer Kubernetes due to the unification and the next level of the platform itself.

We use this solution for the hosting of micro-services. Kubernetes helps us to orchestrate all the containers hosting these micro-services.

One of the most valuable features is the ability to manage containers and pods. The solution monitors if applications are live and if issues are picked up, it automatically resolves these. This solution keeps our application in working condition. 

This is an open source solution, which gives the community the opportunity to request specific features which the Kubernetes team then work on and add to the solution.

We would to have additional features related to security within the API, instead of needing to install an add-on. 

I have used this solution for almost four years. 

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. We are able to ramp up certain campaigns which this solution manages well. We have 400 to 500 people using this solution. 

This solution took one and a half years to get ready in production. We needed to explore a lot of add-ons in order to deploy into the Kubernetes cluster. 

This is a really useful solution that is particularly useful for organizations using micro-services. This solution is not suitable for use with monolithical applications. Kubernetes works well in an on premises or cloud environment.

The suitability of this solution may vary from company to company.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten. 

If our project requires a cloud deployment we will use a cloud provider's version of Kubernetes. For example, Azure or AWS Kubernetes Elastic Services. We try to make use of whatever is provided by the cloud providers. 

If the project requires an on-premise solution we use products from various vendors, such as Red Hat or other open-source products that can be downloaded and installed for free.

We are using Kubernetes for container management.

Kubernetes use cases are typically containerized application hosting. This is the basic use case that we do. Another use case can be deploying new application microservices which are loosely coupled and containerized using microservices-based architectures.

We can achieve a reduction of almost 50% to 60% of effort in operations by using Kubernetes.

The most valuable feature is the Zero Touch Operations, which involves a new way of performing operations and support. We do not have to do maintenance, the operations are very simple.

Kubernetes can improve by providing a service offering catalog that can be readily populated in Kubernetes. 

The service catalog, for example, could be a CRM application on Kubernetes or an eCommerce retail application packaged on Kubernetes and to be readily deployable. Instead of somebody trying to figure out all the configurations of hosting this on Kubernetes, if something was readily available, which the developers for these CRM or eCommerce products, they could partner with either AWS, Google, or Azure and make the deployment of such applications readily available on Kubernetes. 

This would allow very little work for a business to go live. The business can quickly straight away and subscribe, launch, and use. It is not difficult for an IT team to be involved to create an application environment to start up. It's would be much easier for businesses to use it directly and start off the applications.

I have been using Kubernetes for approximately three weeks.

The stability of Kubernetes depends on how we have designed it. Our design is stable because I know how to design it and if something goes wrong how to fix it.

The scalability is superb, it is highly scalable.

We have 75,000 employees in our organization that is using this solution.

Technical support is not used very frequently. We use advanced-level support occasionally. It is only in certain circumstances when we have some advanced complexity that we reach out to an expert.

A person with a moderate level of knowledge on Kubernetes, with the help of the community forum, and documentation, most of their problems can be solved.

We do not need any particular company, such as Red Hat, to come in and support the Kubernetes environment, or some other company, such as Ubuntu Canonical to be signed up for a contract to support Kubernetes. It's not required.

The initial setup is straightforward, it was not complex.

The maintenance for Kubernetes is very minimal.

You need to pay for a license if you buy branded products. For example, if you take the services from Azure, AWS, or Google, the price of the Kubernetes cluster is inclusive of the service that's being offered to us on a pay-and-use model.

I haven't tried all the advanced features of Kubernetes, but I feel it is meeting most of the requirements of a new design architecture for applications to be hosted. I don't see any particular functionality which is not available for me as of now.

The open-source ecosystem is providing lots of ideas to solve all kinds of problems. The open-source ecosystem of developers, implementers, and integrators is providing lots of ideas. If there is something I may not know, I look up to the community forum and receive answers. There are no issues of finding something, however, Kubernetes by itself has to improve. It is a matter of the implementer to discover ideas to solve the problem. The Kubernetes engine is designed very well.

I would highly recommend this solution to others.

I rate Kubernetes a nine out of ten.

There are many use cases. It's a concept of microservices-based architecture. You will find that Kubernetes is the most reliable solution. I work for a digital advertising company, for example. When you have advertisements that are served on the top of a website, or a sidebar or something, you fill those spaces with digital advertisements. It's a complete market product, and our end customers are media houses and advertisement agencies.

We are using 600 or 700 or more microservices on microservice-based architecture, and, in order to run the microservices, we use the container-based technique as it is a much more reliable platform. It's more secure due to the use of isolation techniques. Currently, we are running an almost 190 node cluster. That is a very big cluster.

This is how it is used in an advertising context: if there is a cricket game being streamed on a web portal, which has a very high viewership, a lot of companies will want to promote their ads while this particular match is playing. The portal itself is responsible for managing its streaming activity. At the same time, our company is there to display the ads on the sidebars. In such a scenario, where a high volume of people are working on some content and to handle the advertisement from the various media outlets, we need a very good auto-scaling structure. Kubernetes works well for this. At any given point in time, there is a concept for a horizontal port auto scaler based on CCP utilization. Kubernetes itself tries to increase the number of ports, which means it'll try to increase the number of instances, which are running.

Another example of how we use Kubernetes is in a banking environment. In this case, they have an on-prem version. They do not have a cloud solution at all. Occasionally, there is a high volume of transactions happening. They need flexibility. They need high availability and the very beautiful thing about the Kubernetes is that, behind the scenes, these companies are doing their own development of their own applications.

At any given point of time, if version one of the application is currently running in their data centers in form of Kubernetes, it is very easy for them to launch version two. If version one is running, and another version is running slowly, we can divert all the requests, which are coming to version one over to version two. The moment a customer accepts that particular product, we remove version one, and version two is ready. There is no downtime and no complexity. 

The deployment strategy is great. If we look into any other framework, we do not have a good deployment strategy here. The Kubernetes framework itself gives you fantastic deployment strategies with rolling updates. 

We can completely decouple solutions, which means we can scale as much as we want. Technically there are no limitations. The way you can scale up and scale down your cluster with very few commands is amazing.

With the high availability, I can put some intelligence on the top of it. We're capable of handling any type of application nowadays. While there were limitations in previous versions, we don't need to maintain the previous state of the application. The moment our application restarts, we are not required to remember what we have used before. We do not require memory. 

The product is highly scalable. 

Security-wise, there are a lot of frameworks that are available. 

The product offers security, scalability, high availability deployment, and scheduling mechanisms. These are all features that people are passionate about. 

There are a lot of complexities. They're a lot of components that are working together internally. If you look into the installation methods nowadays, it's better, however, previously, it was a very complex process. It's improving. It could still be better. Currently, we do have a very simple method in order to install Kubernetes. 

They need to focus on more security internally. The majority of the security is coming from external frameworks which means I need to deploy a third-party framework to improve the security. For example, there's Notary, OPPI, or KubeCon. Basically, there are some areas where I need to take the help of a third party. 

The solution requires networking dependence. Kubernetes does not have its own networking component. Once again, I need to work with a third party. It is fully integrated, no doubt about that, however, I need to be dependent on third-party components to make it work.  I want Kubernetes to improve security-wise and make their own stack available inside the core Kubernetes engine to make the secure implementation. If they can integrate the networking component inside the core component that would be best. With dependency removed it would give more choice to the customer. 

Currently, they're improving immutable structures and a lot of things. They're coming out with version 1.21 in order to reduce some security issues. They are removing the direct dependency from Docker. There are many areas they're working on. 

A policy enforcement engine is something people are really looking for, which could be part of the four component vertical port auto scaler. A horizontal port auto scaler is already available, however, a vertical port auto scaler should be available. 

If there was a built-in solution for login and a monitoring solution, if they can integrate some APIs or drivers where I can attach directly any monitoring tool, that would be great.  

I've worked with the solution for almost six or seven years. I've worked on this particular product rigorously. Earlier, I used to work with on-premises solutions which involved deploying the Kubernetes cluster with the hardware in a cube spray, which is the latest method.

The performance completely depends on the user. Typically, it's stable. 1.20 is a quite stable product as they have improved in many areas. Currently, that is the one stable version. Technically, yes, they are making their products stable. No doubt about that. That said, stability is an ongoing process. They are trying to improve the product in different areas. 

Performance-wise, it completely depends upon how you define and how you design your cluster. For example, what are the components you are using? How have you made your particular cluster, and under what type of workload? I've worked on medium to large scale workloads, and, if you rate out of five, I'd give it a 4.5. It's got a very good performance.

I would recommend this solution to large enterprises. That said, small enterprises still have very simple options available to them which are reliable and secure. It is very easy to manage. Still, it's more suitable for a large-scale company or maybe something that's in the mid-range, and for a small organization, I do not recommend it.

The scalability is quite impressive in this product.

The major setback of the product is the technical support. They might provide some sort of email support, however, you cannot rely on it. 

You never know when you are going to get the response and unfortunately, when it comes to having a third-party component that you can use to build your Kubernetes cluster, those are also open source, and there is often no technical support, no email support, no chat support. Many have community-based support, which you can depend on. 

This is a major setback for the user. It's the reason customers need to hire a consultant who is rigorously working with the product. In my case, as a consultant, 24/7 I'm using the Kubernetes container and OpenShift. 

Due to the lack of support, other companies take advantage. For example, Red Hat. Red Hat says, they'll give support for Kubernetes, however, you have to use their product, which is called OpenShift. If you look into the OpenShift, OpenShift is basically Kubernetes. There's only one more abstraction layer provided by Red Hat. However, Red Hat will say, I will give you the support, and it's a product made by them, so they know the loopholes. They know the way to troubleshoot it. They know what to debug. They can provide support - if you use them. Rancher is another company that does this. It's basically a Kubernetes product, with Rancher as the abstraction layer, and they will provide support to their clients. Cloud providers also have jumped onto this particular approach. If I get something directly from the Cloud provider and the Cloud provider is taking responsibility, then I don't have to worry about troubleshooting and support at all. What I need to worry about is only my client or workers and my application, which is running on the top of a particular stack. That's it.

Previously, the initial setup was complex however, right now It's pretty simple.

Nowadays, deployment will take ten to 15 minutes, depending upon the number of clusters you want. If I talk about the single master and a simple testing purpose, it's ten to 15 minutes. A multi-master technique will take possibly one hour or maybe less. It's pretty fast. In previous versions, it would take an entire day to deploy. There used to be a lot of dependencies. 

A lot of maintenance is required in terms of image creation. Maintenance is required as well as far as the volume is concerned as space is one of the main challenges. Network support is necessary which means continuous monitoring and log analysis are needed. 

If I set up the cluster as well as operational maintenance activity, I need proactive monitoring and proactive log analysis. I need someone who can manage the users, authorization, and authentication mechanisms. Kubernetes does not have an authorization authentication mechanism. I need to depend on a third-party utility. Sometimes a developer will ask you to create a user and give some provisional space. There are many activities, daily activities, that need to be covered.

In the world of management, Kubernetes does not have its own mechanism. That's why there has to be some administrator who can provide the volume to the Kubernetes administrator and the Kubernetes administrator can decide to whom they give the space. If an application is required, they will try to increase the space. 

I work as a freelancing consultant. I am actually providing consulting for the company, which I work for. I help my end customers who are service providers. I work as an independent consultant for this particular product.

Even though the solution is open-source, one major service we need to pay for is storage. Normally we are using the storage from EMC or NetApps or IBM. These companies created their own stack of provisions and if I want to use their storage for my Kubernetes clusters, these are the license stacks that I need to purchase.

Storage is the major component, as the licensing is based on that. Technically, there's an operating system license, which is something that I need to pay by default for every node, that I'm using. Other than that, with any other framework now, OPPA is completely free. Calico is completely free. A lot of frameworks are available. A framework is going to make sure that our entire Kubernetes cluster is based on compliance and is compliance-specific. Whichever customer I'm handling, I always look for ways to save them money because at end of the day, as they're investing in a lot of operational costs. I try to seek out mostly open-source products which are stable and reliable. Still, even if I do that, storage is an area where people need to pay the money.

The company I am working for is just a customer and end-user. 

1.20 is a quite stable version at this moment, however, Kubernetes does have another more recent version of 1.24.

For us, 40% of customers are working on the cloud and 60% of customers that have compliance policies are deployed in their own cluster and are not using a managed service from the cloud.

There are a lot of caches available. Using the cloud-based instances as one of the nodes in the Kubernetes cluster is acceptable. The question would be how many people are using manage services by any cloud provider for Kubernetes, and that is 30% or 40% of customers. They said they don't want to manage their cluster on their own. They don't want to have the headache of managing the cluster. They are focused on their business application and their business. This is what they want. That's why they are going for managed services. They don't have to do anything at all. Everything can be controlled by the cloud provider.

On the other hand, 60% of people are looking for something that offers full control. That way, at any given point of time, if they want to upgrade Kubernetes, they can. For example, there is an open policy agent, which is a policy enforcement utility or framework, which is available on the top of Kubernetes. By default, if I want to use policy enforcement on the top of the cloud, I do have multiple choices on the top of the cloud. There are some restrictions, however. With on-premises, people want everything to be their hand so they can implement anything. 

One of the major things I would recommend to users is that whenever they are doing capacity planning if they are looking at deploying the Kubernetes on top of their on-prem solution, it will likely require the purchase of hardware. In those cases, I recommend they make sure they understand what type of workload they are putting on the top of their cluster, and calculate that properly. They need to understand how much consumption is in order to understand their hardware requirements in order to get the right sizing on the one-time purchase. They need to know the number of microservices they are using and the level of power consumption in terms of CPU and memory. They will also want to calculate how much it'll scale.

Kubernetes will provide all the scalability a company needs. You can add the node and remove the node quickly. However, if you miscalculate the hardware capacity itself the infrastructure may not be able to handle it. That's why it is imperative to make sure that capacity planning is part of the process. I'd also advise companies to do a POC first before going into real production.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case of this solution is to maintain the container orchestration. Our platform is mostly containerized and our solution needs Kubernetes because it was developed in a containerized environment. We are end-users. 

The Kubernetes cluster is easy to maintain on the container orchestration. It's very stable with outward scalability and good performance which is very important for our platform. Kubernetes is a good choice to maintain the containerized application and solution. 

Scalability is good but I'd like to see it improved with more user-friendly operability. 

I've been using this solution for about 18 months. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable.

Installation of the Kubernetes manifest file is quite straightforward. We have close to 800 users. My team has two engineers who deal with any issues. 

I highly recommend this solution and rate it 10 out of 10. 

Kubernetes is a container-based platform that is used for microservices-based applications. 

You can containerize and deploy your ports, as well as expose them over the internet, to get your applications running.

The performance is good.

The services it provides you are good.

It runs in multiple availability zones.

The configuration is a bit complicated.

Because the platform provided is so simple, additional configuration is required to get your apps up and running.

There are some issues with the upgrades. When updates are released, the older versions are decommissioned. 

The updates are quite frequent and are lengthy. It takes about an hour each time.

I have been working with Kubernetes for approximately two years.

It's cloud-agnostic Kubernetes, we have it available in Azure, AWS, and GCP.

In the two years that I have been using Kubernetes, I have not experienced any issues with the stability of this solution.

Our main e-commerce application is running in Kubernetes. Currently, we have three applications running, and we are trying to onboard different applications.

You need to have knowledge of Kubernetes to manage the cluster and to complete the deployment.

It can take 20 to 30 minutes to configure the Kubernetes cluster.

Once the setup is complete you can have your dependencies running in Kubernetes.

You need a core technical person, who is a DevOps engineer who has experience working on Kubernetes to deploy and maintain this solution.

We evaluated ECS, which is a service offered by Amazon.

It's an orchestration tool, but it has certain limitations.

I would highly recommend this solution to anyone who is considering using it.

I would rate Kubernetes a nine out of ten.

We use this solution to orchestrate our applications.

If for example, you want to use a Microservice for replication, you host it on Docker then you will need to orchestrate your application. This might include autoscaling, security, and traceability for the user.

I like the replication center and the configuration.

The dashboard, monitoring, and login need improvements.

I have been using Kubernetes for five years.

We are using versions 1.15 and 1.20.

Kubernetes is stable.

It's a scalable solution.

This solution is being used in large organizations from the financial sector.

We have not contacted technical support.

I have some experience with OpenShift and Azure.

The initial setup was straightforward.

It can be deployed in 45 minutes to one hour.

There are several teams required for different areas that communicate with each other such as security teams, work teams, and maintenance teams. There are anywhere from five to nine people that we communicate with, who are engineers from each division.

I completed the installation and implementation myself. I did not use the help of an integrator or consultant.

There are no licensing fees.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I would rate Kubernetes an eight out of ten.

Kubernetes is used for cloud-native development. We deploy it to the hybrid cloud, like private in Azure and public cloud in Amazon AWS. Kubernetes is underlying, and we do not use Kubernetes directly. We use products that use underlying Kubernetes like OpenShift or Tanzu.

I like that it has really boosted cloud-native development and stood the test of time. The underlying architecture allows one to scale as per the business KPIs much faster. The underlying architecture is the master that works faster than the nodes. Then there are pods within those slave nodes, and there is a control pan as a part of the core architecture of the Kubernetes. Once you have the cluster up and running, you can monitor that and deploy your applications into the Kubernetes cluster. 

They should update Kubernetes more regularly. Kubernetes is open-source and supported by cloud-native communities. But there are other proprietary versions of Kubernetes like VMware, which runs Tanzu with underlying Kubernetes architecture, or Red Hat, which runs OpenShift. 

These have priority over the open-source project over the last five years. The Cloud Native Foundation is currently out with version number two. The first version came out 14 years ago. We really don't know when we will see another version or improvement with this totally open-source project.

Scalability can be improved. It should be flexible enough to run two instances that can be changed immediately to four, six, or eight swiftly. They could also simplify the logging process.

I have been using Kubernetes for about five years.

Kubernetes is stable.

Kubernetes is scalable because the underlying architecture allows you to scale faster.

The initial setup and installation are straightforward. You can install and deploy it within a matter of hours.

Kubernetes is open-source.

I would recommend it because of the microservices architecture that allows you to write cloud-native code in the Kubernetes environment. Kubernetes has become a leading choice for most big companies, and they are making their own products based on the underlying Kubernetes architecture. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Kubernetes a nine.

It's a mobile phone application with a website written in Angular 8. It's a strategic microservices solution. There are a lot of containers and resources. The application is written in Java, and we are using Spring Boot, the second version. We are also using the application-gateway of Azure.

If you want to do the microservices strategy, you need to split the services to the smaller work. There must be containers in Docker. There are not that many good solutions for Docker. So right now, if you need to use Docker, you choose Kubernetes because they are number one for the container orchestration solution.

The auto-repair function in Kubernetes is perfect. When something breaks, the auto-repair function automatically repairs it. If you are running the content in Kubernetes, you have a good setup. You do not need to do anything for the management of this. So, the automation of Kubernetes is number one.

The Kubernetes dashboard can be improved. It is currently a mess. We were using Rancher earlier, and everyone was happy with the dashboard. Right now, we are using Kubernetes, and it's not working with Microsoft workstations. Aks is using mcr.microsoft.com/oss/kubernetes/dashboard:v2.0.0-rc7 for dashboard. It has problems with auth. It constantly deletes tokens in kube/config file. And auth with kube/config file is not working on mac. It does not work on chrome in windows 10. It is still laggy and slow. Auto refresh function is not working correctly and you need to refresh your browser. Older versions have similar problems. There is no restart function such as in rancher. There is no possible to restart or scale more deployments at the same time. You need to write script for that. Graphics design is out of date. After a while of not clicking anywhere it give you 401 and you need to login again.

I have been using this solution for two to three years. 

The stability is totally perfect because if something breaks, it gets auto-repaired. We had only one failure, but it was not the failure of Kubernetes, it was the failure of Azure machine.

The scalability is great. You have scale sets, and every scale set has node tools. You have different types of refurbishing, and you have a node count. If I need more CPU or more information, I just change the node count, and everything is run in the cloud. It will automatically pull the new node to Kubernetes in the product label, and the load will run there. 

I also used the downscale and upscale features. You can also automate the scaling, but I didn't try that. I would love to use that. I am using manual scaling. If I need a new installation, it takes two to ten minutes in a cluster. This can also be done by the junior admins in one click.

Support is the only problem we face with this solution. I don't know which plan we have, but our software is stable. We are also a customer of a reseller, and we need to open tickets with the reseller. After that, we open a ticket in Microsoft Azure, but it takes two or three weeks to get an answer from the technical guy from Microsoft, which is terrible. It could be because we have the basic support.

We were using Rancher 1.6 before, but it reached the end of life. Right now, the version is Rancher 2. In my opinion, I don't need to put another layer of Rancher 2 when I already have a good solution from Azure. So, I chose the Azure solution.

The initial setup is more complex because you don't only set up Kubernetes. You also need to set up some CI/CD solution, and you need a setup to back up your workload to the Kubernetes. If you want to deploy the workload to Kubernetes and you want to do it efficiently, you need to have Helm. Helm is for catalog package for Kubernetes. So, you need to know how to work with Helm. 

You need to create docket files or some DevOps scripts for deploying ability. The solution is complex. You definitely need to have an experienced DevOps person. If you have juniors in your company, they will not know how to set up the solution, which is not good. You need to have experience in tech DevOps.

For small setups, it doesn't matter. You run Kubernetes, put some containers, and you play with it. That's okay. However, if you want to run it in production with everything, it needs experienced DevOps staff. We have a team of up to 10 developers and DevOps members.

Yes, I am a certified administrator. Deployment was very easy. I deployed the Kubernetes service alone to run some workload in Asia. There is an automation feature in this solution. You only open one page and fill some requirements, and everything goes out to the team. It was great. 

I had everything scripted in the platform with code in 50 minutes, but this is only for Kubernetes, the infrastructure, and the network stuff. I had scripted everything again, but it was in the Ops script; not in the platform. I could deploy the complete workload within one hour.

The management layer is free, which is perfect. You don't need to pay money for the management layer, but in AWS develop service, you need to pay. I think it is €75 per month for the management layer. It is free here, so you can have as many Kubernetes clusters as you need. You are paying just for the workload, that is, for the machine, CPU, memory, and everything. 

I am still using the basic Docker Compose, which needs low care. I tried Rancher 2, but I don't have it in production. I also used Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS), and I also tried the Google Cloud Platform. 

I think Google Cloud Platform is the best one, but here in Slovakia, we don't have enough support for Google Cloud, which will become a problem. If I can choose from the integration, I think the Google integration is the best because we could get into the Google products, but here in Europe, we don't have the support for Google Cloud Platform. 

Kubernetes is a great product. I am currently also helping a customer with the implementation of AKS because they only have a private cloud, and they want to have a hybrid cloud. I highly recommend to use this feature, and not to install Kubernetes manually or use some third-party tools. The Azure community service is better implemented than AWS community service. 

They are not good at planning the upgrades for Kubernetes. So, you really need to constantly upgrade the cost. The upgrade is automatic, but Azure changed the integration of load balancing, and I was forced to re-deploy all costs, which costed my company. We need two clusters at the same time from every environment. So, this was not good. I contacted the support, but there was no way to change the integration of the load balancer. I hope this will never happen again in the future.

I would rate Kubernetes an eight out of ten. The dashboard and support could be better.