Kubernetes Reviews

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.

We are using it for hosting applications. Customers are hosted on the Kubernetes Service AKS.

They've introduced an enterprise option, which is quite helpful. 

It is always up to date. They're also automatically updating when the new version is ready.

There's a lot of community support if you need to get help. 

There are a couple of improvements there also need to be at play.

For example, if we deploy without RBACs to the cluster, it can't be deployed. When there's like GCPW or AWS, there is room. Even though we have deployed the clusters without RBACs enabled, we can add the RBACs later. However, Microsoft has limitations. There are features in Google Cloud or AWS that aren't in Azure. They need to implement a couple more tools in Azure. 

The application gateway, app gateway, needs to be improved. It's not fully developed yet.

I've been using the solution for around two years. 

The stability is good. It's always up to date and running well. There are no glitches and it doesn't rah or freeze. We did have one bug once however it has since been fixed. It is reliable.

We have 18 to 20 people using the solution and they are in DevOps. However, I've never tried to scale it. I'm not sure how well it would scale or not. 

We have used community help in the past and found it useful. They are helpful and responsive when you need to get a hold of them.

Positive

The deployment has a moderate level of difficulty. It takes around 30 minutes to 40 minutes to get everything up and running.

We pay a monthly fee in order to sue the solution. 

We're not a partner. We are end-users.

I'm not sure of the exact version of the solution we are using. 

Microsoft is hosted on their environment. We can't host it in our own environment. We are using the Azure Kubernetes AKS. If it's Azure, it needs to be hosted on its own Azure Cloud. We can't host it, for example, on-premises. 

I would advise potential new users to learn about it and try it out.

I'd rate the solution seven 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.

We deploy our software solution in the Kubernetes environment. 

Honestly, there is not much I like about Kubernetes. It's very complicated to deal with. I just do it because I have to.

There is plenty of room for improvement with the configuration and runtime monitoring. That would make Kubernetes much easier to use. 

I have been dealing with Kubernetes for almost two years. 

Once you get it configured properly, it's a stable solution. The problem is that getting there is complicated.

Kubernetes is scalable, but again, it's such a complicated product.

I've never had to use the tech support.

I would not say that the initial setup is straightforward: the configuration can take me either 45 minutes or a week and a half. 

I try to do it by myself, but I often wind up having to look up directions.

I have not seen a return on investment with Kubernetes.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

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. 

Kubernetes is used for container management. The use case depends on the project. My company was releasing products that work with Kubernetes.

Kubernetes is scalable and the elasticity is sustainable.

Kubernetes is a complex solution. The product needs to be more manageable and user-friendly.

Currently, I work as a systems engineer. I have been using Kubernetes for two years.

Kubernetes is stable. Usually the solution requires maintenance, however, in my environment, Nutanix covers the maintenance like upgrading and patching.

The solution is scalable. A user can start their business with Kubernetes and the workload can expand as the business expands.

The solution is open source.

Kubernetes is a complex solution. If someone is looking to build Kubernetes in a production environment, I suggest they choose some partners like cloud providers or software solution vendors such as Red Hat or VMware. A lot of system integrators provide a solution, including technical support for Kubernetes. I recommend you find the right partner or provider.

I would rate Kubernetes a nine out of 10 overall.

I primarily use Kubernetes to manage containers.

Kubernetes' most valuable features include scalability and deployment.

Kubernetes' VM functionality and security could be improved. 

I've been using Kubernetes for six months.

I would rate Kubernetes' stability eight out of ten.

I would rate Kubernetes' scalability ten out of ten.

The initial setup is straightforward so long as you have an understanding of the product. Deployment takes around forty-five minutes to an hour.

We implemented using an in-house team.

I would recommend Kubernetes to other users and rate it ten out of ten.

We deploy microservices. We provide the screen namespaces. 

Kubernetes' integration with AWS Lambda is great. I barely had to write any code to connect from EKS to Lambda, so Kubernetes is programmer friendly.

Kubernetes could adopt UI-based approach. A UI-based approach would be really useful in the CI/CD pipeline. They should make everything a little bit more user-friendly.  For example, when I'm deploying, it would be nice to load my code and be able to see which components need to be connected. 

I've been using Kubernetes for more than two years. 

Kubernetes support is fine. That is not a problem.

Deploying Kubernetes is straightforward. Some are using GitLab. However, it does take a little bit of time, and it could be faster. 

Licenses for Kubernetes are on a yearly basis.

I rate Kubernetes nine out of 10. I would recommend it.