Kubernetes Reviews

My primary use case of this solution is for infrastructure implementations - we allocate an EC2 instance and then define how many worker nodes are needed to run the application and the managed nodes.

More automation could improve the product - specifically, it would be useful to be able to shut down any IT machines that are currently not in use.

I have been using Kubernetes for around a year and a half.

I think this solution is stable.

I think Kubernetes is scalable in a vertical manner, depending on the type of instances in the worker mode. If you don't have resources, you can certainly add another worker node and expand the cluster.

With the latest edition of Kubernetes, there is a concern in terms of infrastructure regarding AWS support. There is no specific contact point for issues with Kubernetes, so we have to rely on the internet and blogs in order to work out what has gone wrong. 

The setup was not straightforward. There were certain challenges in setting up the product requiring a lot of time on proper configuration and compiling. The first time we deployed took a lot of time but now we can do it in around a week.

You don't need a license for Kubernetes, but you do have to pay for usage.

I would rate Kubernetes as ten out of ten.

We use Kubernetes as a container management solution. We use the Kubernetes solution for security analysis on Verizon's client systems.

Kubernetes container services can be used for deploying applications and they can be deployed on the path layer. You deploy Kubernetes, and inside it, you deploy VMs and application containers. If you take Cloud Foundry inside the data cells, you deploy the application and data. This is how the solution operates.

The solution is easy to use.

I have been using Kubernetes for approximately two years.

The solution is stable.

Kubernetes is scalable.

The support could be faster at resolving issues.

We have approximately 12 workers that do the implementation.

The solution requires a license to use it.

I would recommend this Kubernetes to others, it is a good technology.

I rate Kubernetes an eight 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 management platform. 

I use it to be able to sell it to my customers. I am evaluating it and its general features.

I would like to have more knowledge and a good understanding of Kubernetes, what it can do, and what the use cases are to meet the customer's requirements or environment. 

By using it, I can properly advise the clients of what Kubernetes can, and can't do.

Scalability is the most valuable feature.

With Kubernetes, you also get High Availability.

Kubernetes can be used for most companies, but for some companies that may be too small, it may not be worth the investment, as it is expensive.

I have been working with Kubernetes for two years.

We are using the latest version.

Kubernetes is a stable product.

Kubernetes is a scalable product.

We have multiple sales teams, some are responsible for large enterprises businesses, some for medium-sized companies.

The documentation they have available is good.

I have not contacted technical support. 

Much like other products such as Red Hat, for example, have their own support.

I work with any product that is related to Kubernetes.

The initial setup was straightforward. 

It's simple, and it is easy to deploy.

We provide implementation services for our clients as well as maintenance.

In addition to Kubernetes, you have to pay for support.

The price could be cheaper.

They offer many different licensing models. There are many options to choose from.

I would recommend this solution to others. 

It is my job to do this and I feel that it is the future of every company.

We are integrators, and we are working on becoming partners, to obtain the certificate.

I would rate Kubernetes a nine 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.

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.

We are not using the Google version, but the open source Kubernetes.

This product can be deployed both on cloud or on-premises.

Our use case is mostly for multi-services or the applications which you will try to modernize. Investors will come from monolithic applications to mostly cloud-native applications. When I say cloud-native applications, that means each service component will be part of one container. You need a container orchestration or a management platform. So Kubernetes is actually a management or an orchestration platform for containers. Basically, it works with microservice applications.

One of Kubernetes' top features is its agility, it is very fast. You can deploy a container pretty quickly compared to a virtual machine. That is one strong feature. A second feature is its flexibility because you can use it on any platform. You can use it on Google or AWS or Microsoft or IBM or any clouds. So flexibility of deployment and agility are the top features. It also helps in your maintenance cycles when you do maintenance on your environment.

For improvements, I would say it's actually still evolving so they are already making a lot of improvements along the way. Each and every release comes with new features so I think they're doing well.

One feature I would actually like to see is the network monitoring part. When we talk about communities, it's mostly the computer side. But it does have some enhancements on the networking side which they have recently released. I would like to see more enhancement where we can monitor the networks of the Kubernetes cluster or the Kubernetes workloads.

This Kubernetes product is new so I would say I have been using it around two years.

I am using version 1.18, not the latest one.

Stability is still a question because it depends upon which flavor you're installing. It could be on-prem or it could be cloud, it could be open source. It's still debatable.

That said, stability-wise I haven't seen any problem myself up to now, but I might not be right. There are many other people who are deploying this in a production environment. I haven't done it myself in production so I would not be the correct person to answer that. But for me, I haven't found any stability issues.

Kubernetes definitely has good scalability. 

The number of users on it can vary. It can be used by very small organizations to very large and complex organizations. There is a customer I was working with who has more than 80,000 employees around the globe. But not everyone is a user of this technology. If you're asking about the users of this technology, I would say around 1,000 - 5,000.

Their technical support depends upon which flavor you're installing. Mostly, if you're going to the cloud version, support is definitely provided by the vendors. Like Microsoft provides its own support, AWS provides their own, and even IBM does the same. But if you're deploying on your own prem, that's where the question is. It depends. It's not a product sold by a single company, it's an open source, so big companies like J.P Morgan or Citibank have it deployed on their own premises and support will be their internal teams who will be working on that.

Installation is not a straightforward thing. It's a process that you have to follow step by step. On-prem is a little tedious because you have to spend some time to get this installed and create a platform. But people are mostly inclined towards cloud. They use Kubernetes on the cloud.

I did install it myself in my lab and the install itself doesn't take much time, about a couple of hours. But to go through the documentation takes time. You have to understand each and every component and then try to install that. So it's a combination of both understanding the documentation and then installing. Because it's a new technology, it does take a little bit of time.

It depends. If you talk to a customer and you get a project with them that they want to deploy, you're going to need a project manager or a technical architect, and then you'll need at least one or two guys who can do the hands on deployment. It's not a fairly large team, but you will need a project manager, a technical architect and an engineer.

There are different types of licenses. You have a subscription-based license if you are talking about cloud. This has both yearly or monthly available. Or you can go on number of workloads, based on how much workload you're putting on the cloud.

I would definitely recommend Kubernetes for others who want to start using it.

I would say it is no longer in its inception phase, but it is still in the early phase. The product hasn't matured enough. There are customers who are looking to take this maybe around two years down the line. On a scale of one to ten, I would give Kubernetes an eight.

We primarily use the solution for deploying containers and scheduling the jobs to the Kubernetes for our server-side deployment.

Before we switched to Kubernetes, we had been using a solution that required a manual interaction with the server. Every time you need to scale it up and down, it was a lot of hassle. With this solution, we were able to add continuous integration with Kubernetes. We can trigger the automatic deployment and it will just be deployed and nobody needs to go and do anything. In terms of scaling, we can define the scalability rules, which will grow as the traffic grows, as opposed to past instances where you needed to change the instances of the CPO, etc.

Since we are saving so much time, we're also saving our company money. We're saving a few hours of work a week at this point.

The ease of use in the solution is a very valuable aspect for us.

The scalability of the product is excellent. Scalability is particularly important to us due to the fact that we have available traffic that requires our service to scale up and down according to the load on the service.

It would be very interesting if they could introduce a template engine to set dynamic values in the deployment time. It would be ideal if it could be native in Kubernetes as it would be much easier.

I've been using the solution for three to four years.

In this particular deployment, we've had the solution running for a little bit less than a year, and we have had zero stability issues. It's extremely stable. There are no bugs and glitches. It works without fail and is very reliable.

We had one instance once where it disappeared once for an instant, and nobody even noticed anything was wrong. That said, I do not think that was a fault of Kubernetes. It was more about an AWS issue.

From the perspective of managing Kubernetes and deploying and updating, we have two developers (one team leader and a DevOps). We taught four people to actively use and manage it. Then, almost everyone is using some service that is running on Kubernetes (about 15 or so people), therefore, it's widely used at our organization.  

We do have plans to increase usage in the future. We're planning to scale as we go where we will add more services and more deployments into Kubernetes.

We don't directly reach out to technical support. Rather, we tend to use their available documentation for troubleshooting.

We are using it on AWS, and it was fairly easy to deploy. As far as I know on other platforms, it is also quite easy as they have a faster-managed service. However, if I deploy it manually myself and manage the nodes by myself, it's pretty complex. Therefore, it can get pretty complex. Using the AWS managed solution removes the complexity for us.

The deployment took us about two days with testing, et cetera.

At the first stage, we had to wrap everything on our server-side, with the applications in the Docker containers. Then we deployed the ETS to the cloud and then we deployed the containers into the ETS. After that, we switched the browser to point to the newly deployed containers and load balance cells instead of the old machines. After that, we switched off the old machine.

We handled the deployment ourselves. We didn't need the assistance of any consultants or integrators.

Technically, we pay either way. We had the machine that we paid and we switched it off. We didn't really save on money investment so much as stability investment. We invested in this environment in order to attain a more stable and predictable application. That was our ROI.

The solution can be more expensive for smaller companies. If you run it on a smaller scale it's pricey. However, if you scale up or use it on a larger scale, it's pretty competitive in the pricing.

For example, on Amazon, the billing is mostly for the machines that you're using. If you have a lot of containers, hundreds of containers, running on the ECS, it can even be more expensive than if you were running the same containers on some deployment as you're paying for the nodes that are running the machines. If you can use fewer containers in the same machine it can be cheaper. It really depends on deployment. 

If you decide to take the managed service, be aware that it's $100-$200 extra monthly. It's not much, and it's worth the cost.

We did evaluate Amazon's Elastic Container cluster before ultimately choosing this product.

Kubernetes is multi-platform. You can run it on any cloud and you can also run it on your local machine. The implementation is also much more straightforward with Kubernetes and deployment is easier. Even though the product is from Amazon themselves, Kubernetes is easier to maintain and deploy.

I would advise new users to take the managed solution. Don't deploy it by yourself. Just take a managed service. It's really worth it. I advise this due to the fact that it's a lot of time and effort. It's not that expensive in terms of overhead. It may be $100 or $200 or something like that monthly. When you pay $3,000, let's say, the $100 doesn't really matter. However, the work that your DevOps will have will be costly. They will initially invest to maintain your unmanaged deployment. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this solution a ten.