Kubernetes Reviews

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.

We use Kubernetes mainly for the apps. We are a government organization, and we have many public-facing apps. We also run all our microservices run on Kubernetes.

I like that it gives you all the flexibility, for example, auto-scaling. Everything is figured out exactly right. It manages all your workloads without much intervention. It can scale in, scale out, and with security. Everything looks pretty good compared to the old legacy way of working.

Kubernetes has been tested and proven. I don't think there's anything that needs improvement, and it has been working very well. But the plugins could be better. That is one pain point we had, and we had to get in with many other open standards, like Calico networking and more. 

I have been using Kubernetes for about three years.

Kubernetes is stable.

Kubernetes was good, and it would automatically scale in and scale-out. We never had issues with scalability.

I have both Cloud Foundry and Kubernetes. Cloud Foundry is much better suited for an organization with less operational stuff. With about three people, you can manage all the apps in it. But Kubernetes needs patching and more, which makes it a bit tricky.

Kubernetes is open source. But we have to manage Kubernetes as a team, and the overhead is a bit high. In comparison, platforms like Cloud Foundry have much lower operational overheads. With Kubernetes, I have to manage the code, and I have to hire the developers. If someone has a product, a developer should know exactly what he's writing or there's high availability, and all those things which impact costs.

I would recommend Kubernetes to new users.

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

We use the solution to modernize our IT landscape. We use infrastructure and platform surfaces for our data center. More recently we have added a container as a surface, which is this solution.

The easy deployment of containers is one of the main features I have found useful. In large scale developments, it is less hassle working with containers than virtual machines. It is easier to manage these containers instead of virtual machines, although there is a steep learning curve to graps the benefits of it.

This solution is not very easy to use. We are looking also for some tools surrounding this solution to manage the environment and to secure it better. These two are areas that have caused some issues. We want to integrate it with what you call continuous integration and delivery. 

It must be scalable, cost-effective, more agile when it comes to developing and managing the environment for DevOps. All these things go together, it must be cured to allow better manageability. That is what we all are doing in most large companies.

In a future release, the solution could become more like a core engine, in which tools like OpenShift are centered. You could see how all kinds of tools could help to better improve the management, security, or scalability of the product. Additionally, we will need more than the core in our organization, there needs to be more additional management tools moving forward.

I have been using the solution for approximately one year.

When it comes to my own environment, I have had no issues with scalability but it is not easy. This is just the development environment. Regarding my company, within my department, we are running a sandbox environment just for testing and that is going well. I am not sure how things will go if you go fully into production with this solution.

We will look for additional products to deal with the difficulties with scalability. There are several vendors that offer these products. Although this solution was made for scalability, it does not come out of the box this way.

We currently have approximately 30 users using the solution in my organization.

I am not aware exactly how the on-premises installation went for the IT team at my organization. For my local environment where I am testing this solution myself, the installation has been very easy. This is mostly because it is a local environment. We also have a cloud environment, where we have a hybrid data center and this cloud environment installation was fairly easy too.

The deployment was done by an internal team in my organization. 

Maintenance is required for all software versions. We need to manage different areas of the solution such as the cloud-native landscape tooling, registry, DevOps environment, and security toolings. There are three areas that need upgrades, versioning, scalability, and the toolset surrounding the solution. You can not run it on its own, you need additional tools. All of this maintenance is taken care of by our administration IT department.

The solution is affordable.

We plan on using the solution in the future. We are a large data center and we just need to have several options available. We need to have a traditional deployment of Infrastructure as a service, with virtual machines. We need also a platform as a service for very rapid and smaller applications and container management, container as a service which is this solution for all others. We expect that the virtual machines in the next 10 years will decrease and container-based services will increase.

I recommend the solution to others. It is a very good product and the strength can be that other vendors can create their security and management toolings around it allowing it to become a type of core engine. If those other vendors were not there, I think I would be more critical. Within my department, we were a bit late adopting the solution than other parts of the organization. We are still growing and experimenting, we have some clusters already in production. A lot of the product tools are open source which in some cases means the support is also not readily available. You have to adapt to it, but also be cautious when it comes to the support and the steep learning curve issues that you can expect.

I 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. 

I was probably using Kubernetes from the operational side. The service requires high availability, ensuring 99.99% KPI for our customers. So, we primarily used Kubernetes for this purpose and for managing our services.

Kubernetes has everything. Its design structure is quite advanced, and its offerings are extensive. The practical feature was the seamless failover.

The big part has been the design of the environment and the configuration training itself. Then, they program in the test environment, establishing whether everything else is working. Once we hit the deployment on the test environment or the staging, we move to live. The challenging phase of that exercise is if you don't get the configuration right from the beginning to be able to adjust and change.

Kubernetes's configuration could be made easier, especially at the network level, including aspects like IPs and ports. Integrating it into our services was quite challenging.

I have been using Kubernetes for eight years.

The product is stable.

We service about three point four million transactions.

We had approximately twenty-two servers, with eleven on each side. So, we've got two sides, with eleven servers on one side being SQL servers. It took us about three months to set up the infrastructure, and the installation configuration took about one and a half months.

Six engineers were required for the solution's deployment.

The return on investment in terms of the services that we were offering was quite good. However, as we started to scale down, we lost the contract. Therefore, maintaining the environment then became very expensive.

The solution is expensive. The salaries of Kubernetes engineers were much higher. They came at a high price. Resources also came at a high price, and therefore, it became very expensive to continue with Kubernetes

The tool is not difficult to maintain, but if you've got problems, troubleshooting and devising can be challenging.

It was beneficial and very complex. The skills development for the team working on it was a little steep. It's more complex compared to other solutions similar to it. It's quite robust and nice, but the learning curve is steep.

In terms of resource management, for instance, if you run out of memory or usage capacity, Kubernetes seamlessly moves your workload from one node to another without any issues.

I recommend the tool primarily for enterprise businesses that can afford the cost associated with Kubernetes, including the end-to-end resources needed, such as people, systems, processes, and so forth.

Overall, I rate the solution 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.