Kubernetes Reviews

We have many use cases for Kubernetes. We manage internal microservices, running MinIO from it which is a distributed storage solution. We have GitLab and many other internal tools that we've converted and set up to Kubernetes and microservices. Our users are mainly software developers who currently number around 60, but we're planning to increase to 100 users in the coming year. We are customers of Kubernetes.

A valuable feature of Kubernetes is its high availability. It's really scalable and more efficient for resource management on the bare metal server on which it runs as opposed to vSphere or pretty much anything else that we've tried before. 

The solution is still complex to manage. It requires specialists to the extent that I wouldn't be able to ask a junior employee to manage the software.

I've been using this solution for six months. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable, you can't get more scalable than Kubernetes.

Kubernetes is community-based so we don't pay for support. 

The initial setup is quite complex. 

The solution is free. 

This is a good product but because of the management complexity I rate it eight out of 10.

If you have a lot of nodes and you want to be able to change the node that you are using, you can use Kubernetes. Kubernetes services allow users to be able to run multiple designs as well.

The stability of the solution is very reliable. The performance is good.

The implementation, and the way that they can, with a few clicks, load hundreds of machines without any trouble is very useful. We found the initial setup to be very straightforward.

There are a lot of benefits.

At this time, there is nothing that I would want to be added to a future release.

The pricing could be improved. It would be ideal if it was a bit less.

I've been using the solution for three years. 

The stability of the solution is very good and the performance is excellent. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

We have about 200 people on the solution at this time.

I'm not using Kubernetes support. I am using Amazon support. I can't speak to how helpful or responsive Kubernetes support would be having no experience with them.

We did not previously use a different solution. We have only ever used Kubernetes. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. It's not overly complex.

The deployment itself took a few weeks. 

We have seven engineers and they're all going to be able to handle Kubernetes.

We handled the installation with the assistance of an integrator. We did not handle the process alone. 

We'd like the pricing to be lower than what it is now.

We pay a yearly licensing fee. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've been very happy with its capabilities so far.

I would recommend the solution to other users.

We use the latest version. 

We use the solution for deployment purposes.

The solution is easy to use.

The solution could be more stable. 

I have been using Kubernetes for about two years.

The solution is stable, although it could be more so. 

The solution is scalable. 

When it comes to technical support, overall, we have managed with the community.

For this project, we started out with Kubernetes. We started only two years back.

The solution was easy to install, although I was not involved in the process and cannot comment on how long it took. 

There are around five people involved in the deployment and maintenance, consisting of workers and engineers.

There is no licensing fee. The solution involves the use of an open source tool.

There are around 300 people using the solution in my organization.

I would recommend this solution to others. 

I rate Kubernetes as a nine out of ten.

We use Kubernetes to provide distribution systems for storage and for the control plane manager.

Kubernetes offers a lot of great features such as scalability and great portability of applications.

I think that the GUI dashboard in Kubernetes is very simple and that there are no great options. Also, it is a very simple HTML GUI. So the Kubernetes community should provide a central and better GUI for managing pods and containers.

I've been working with Kubernetes for around two years.

Kubernetes is very stable.

It is very scalable. If you become a master in Kubernetes, you can provide great configurations to be scalable.

I have to install Kubernetes clusters based on the machines. I spent around one hour to install a Kubernetes cluster with three servers for the master node and around 50 servers for worker nodes.

I implemented it myself.

I would recommend Kubernetes, especially, to development teams and DevOps engineers. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at ten.

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.

Our use case of this product is for mobile banking applications. I'm the executive vice president of the company and we are customers of Kubernetes. 

The scanning and support network are the best features of this product. 

I think Kubernetes should simplify the setup and operation of the product. For now, we don't use many of the features that the solution provides, so there's nothing additional I'd like to see. 

I've been using this solution for over a year. 

Most of the time the product is stable but we do encounter some problems from time to time and it can be difficult to file reports. 

It's quite easy to scale most of the time but sometimes we encounter some difficulties. 

We have contacted technical support but sometimes we connect to online support because the official support is not enough. 

The initial setup is a bit complex and could be simplified. I think it's a simple setup for developers, but maintenance by the system engineer is quite complex, particularly when it comes to locating the problem. We get some support from the system vendor. Once deployed, maintenance is required on both the application and the infrastructure and our IT team is responsible for that. We have around 50 people involved on the system engineering side, they deal with Kubernetes but also with the operating system and database software. We have around 40 users on a daily basis. 

Kubernetes is an open source solution so there is no cost and, for now, no additional costs but we pay for the platform. 

I would definitely recommend this product. 

I rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

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.

The use case in this organization is basically to containerize the applications. It covers both the operational and technology side. I work in the train industry here and that is a medium-sized enterprise. I'm a cloud architect and we are customers of Kubernetes. 

A valuable feature is the management of containers and not having to worry about the high availability or scalability, especially when launching it in the cloud. I like that they provide a managed platform as a service, and you don't really have to worry too much about the master nodes that control the workloads. You tell them what you want: This is a minimum number of container instance, or a maximum number of container instance in this tier. It automatically gets taken care of. What I like about Kubernetes is that it actually manages the containers for you so there are no concerns  regarding availability. If something fails, it launches another one and it scales out which is good. 

That's a good question. I'm not that experienced but there are definitely challenges in Kubernetes, if you are managing the cluster yourself. So doing all the admin work, managing the masters, there are some learning curves involved. If some of those things could be simplified, that would be awesome.

I've been dealing with this solution for around four years. 

Kubernetes is quite stable and has pretty wide community support. Even the enterprises are using it so if you're talking about a stable release and the nightly build and those sorts of things, definitely the enterprise use the latest stable build. And then, when they come across any issues they probably look for the next release or maybe batches and whatnot. But I guess it's fairly stable and it's just like any other open source solution. And the fact is that it's backed by so many large companies, especially Google, so there's no stability problem at all.

The scalability of this solution is fine. 

Deployment is pretty quick. I haven't done much of a bigger scale deployment as such, generally small to medium scale deployment and I've made use of the cloud-based approach. I don't have any issues there. 

I like the solution but it depends on the size of your workload. For example, Docker is good for a very small workload or maybe if you are just deploying using Docker, building and deploying your CICD-based tasks. But if you require a more complex solution, using containers or maybe when you have a high traffic workload, even with simple architecture, you might be looking at Kubernetes to optimize the workload.

There are other solutions on the market like Serverless, I would use that in preference to Kubernetes which can sometimes be difficult to manage. You can always make use of Serverless. For that reason, I would rate Kubernetes a seven out of 10.