Kubernetes Reviews

We use this solution to containerize applications. Some of these applications function in Jira, the local tool center. There, we push them to a centralized platform.

It has a complete loading feature set for replica site deployment.

Currently, in Kubernetes, all of the health deployments or monitoring, and the discrete tools need to be configured. Changing this would make it much easier. Otherwise, we have to rely on a external tool to implement the monitoring.

I have been using Kubernetes for a year and a half 

The stability of the solution is a nine out of ten.

The scalability is good. Ten users use this solution at present. 

The initial setup takes twenty minutes. 

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

We use Kubernetes to deploy a software solution that the company sells to enterprises. Originally, our company offered their software installed without Kubernetes, but they plan to move all future customers to Kubernetes. I would say it's extensively deployed, and they plan to increase it as much as their customer base will accept it.

Kubernetes provides a standardized way to deliver software in a scalable form. The customers of the software already have people who know how to manage Kubernetes, or they can easily hire employees who do. Packaging up the software to run would require a lot of specialized knowledge.

Kubernetes provides scalable clustering for containers and other means of deployment.

Kubernetes is incredibly complicated, so one area of improvement is the ease of administration. I would like a user interface that you can run to help you debug and diagnose problems and suggest how to configure things.

I've been using Kubernetes for about four months. I started using it at HPE and actually switched to be able to work more with it at the new place.

Kubernetes is generally stable. 

Kubernetes is scalable if it's well-administered. 

As far as I know, there's not any customer support. There's customer support for the cloud instances. If you are running Amazon EKS, they might have support for that. It's open-source software, so there isn't Kubernetes support, but I could be completely wrong about that.

The complexity depends on how you deploy it and what flavor you choose. If you're using a cloud provider like Google, AWS, or Azure, they each have a flavor of Kubernetes you can deploy. It is easier to deploy one of those than downloading and installing it on your servers. There's also something called K3S, a lightweight version of Kubernetes that can run much more easily. It's designed to be used in the Internet of Things. It's relatively scalable and can be used independently, but there are different packages, just like Linux has different distributions.

The maintenance required also depends on how you implement it. It's going to require at least one person who knows Kubernetes. I imagine it might need multiple people to maintain the solution if you're not using the cloud versions.

Kubernetes is open source.

I rate Kubernetes 8.5 out of 10. My advice is to hire people who have demonstrated experience or are prepared to spend significant time taking courses because it's deep and broad, and there's a lot to learn. It isn't straightforward, but it would be hard to simplify it, considering what it does.

We have multiple use cases. We use it for pharmacy applications, databases, MySQL and web servers. We use Kubernetes for anything that runs normally.

The high availability of containerization is most valuable. We get density with planning containers, and the self-serving feature allows our developers to grab a container and complete testing. The self-serving feature is always in the cloud or locally integrated with Ceph or cluster.

The front end of Kubernetes could be built better as the front end is very rudimentary.

We have been using this solution for about five years. It is deployed both on-premises and on cloud but mainly on-premises.

It is a stable solution, and we don't have any issues.

It is very scalable. We can scale up, add notes, scale out horizontally, and scale the number of containers in a web server. We add triggers to the cluster, and it scales as needed. We have quite a few users of Kubernetes at our company, and it is very easy to add new developers as users.

The initial setup was straightforward. For testing, we fire up Kubernetes clusters about once a week for different departments. Depending on the containers, it generally takes about four hours to get a cluster up and running and connected to the storage. We've completed this many times and are familiar with the setup. We completed the setup ourselves.

The Kubernetes community edition is free, but we use OpenShift in production, which is the Red Hat version of Kubernetes.

We evaluated Swarm and some other solutions, but we eventually chose Kubernetes and OpenShift.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten. Regarding advice, in the retail field, where clients would require mobility and portability, and disposable computing, there is no comparison to Kubernetes.

At our company, we use the solution internally and integrate it with other products. Kubernetes is helping our organization shift from bare metal servers to cloud infrastructure. 

At our company, we use the solution to create nodes and multiple databases for our organization's clients. Kubernetes also helps me run SQL servers and other similar applications. Using some internal tools at our company, we convert our Kubernetes virtual machine into a GUI-based system that works seamlessly. 

The solution also helps our company develop custom hosting solutions across different servers. The cost of developing custom solutions is also reduced by utilizing Kubernetes. 

Kubernetes helps seamlessly build cloud infrastructure for development and testing. The tool assists in the production of small-scale databases for SMEs. Kubernetes empowers the customization of products developed by our company and accelerates the development process. 

With Kubernetes, a complete product with major functionalities can be developed in a day or two, as might have been discussed by a company in the SOP. MVP or demo product development is also possible with Kubernetes. The development of applications with all required components by the client, including the infrastructure, backup, security, and operating system, becomes very fast with Kubernetes. 

The most valuable features of Kubernetes for me will be automated rollouts or rollbacks, storage orchestration and high-end availability. The storage tasks and load balancing of applications also become easier with Kubernetes.  

The virtual machines from Kubernetes should be GUI-based. The virtual machines can be used only as a command prompt or CLI with Kubernetes. It should allow integration with other interfaces developed using different open-source technologies. Kubernetes should provide centralized free training that is easily available. The product should be made more viable and user-friendly for innovative users. 

I have been using Kubernetes for two years. 

The solution is stable, but there are glitches occasionally. At our company, we are using Kubernetes for customization, so glitches are expected. 

The solution is scalable, but it's mostly based on bare metal servers, so a user cannot exceed a specified limit. Suppose I have a fifteen-core CPU; then, all the nodes will simultaneously use all the resources, which can lead to downtime in the server. When you try to work with proprietary or open-source systems like Kubernetes a common error occurs where the database backup is not utilized. 

The solution provider's customer support needs to be improved. I would rate the customer support as six out of ten. 

Neutral

The product's deployment is straightforward. Only experienced and trained engineers can carry out the deployment. The solution's deployment can be completed within a couple of hours, even if it includes scripting or creating a development/testing environment. But in some rare cases the deployment time can be longer if it involves extensive R&D. 

About three professionals are needed for the deployment of the solution: one architect, one developer, and another individual for maintenance. 

The solution can generate a good ROI and save 50% of the cost for a company. 

It's an affordable solution. I would rate the pricing a five out of ten. 

At our company, we have worked with KubeVirt as well. KubeVirt helps our company convert CLI to a GUI-based product. 

I would rate Kubernetes as seven out of ten. I would advise others to learn Python or YAML programming language before using Kubernetes. 

Kubernetes is our platform of choice for running things in production, applications, and the like. Everything we build runs on Kubernetes, it's our platform of choice. I'm the principal devs engineer.

Kubernetes has improved our time to market because it's quite lightweight and easy to install. 

The most important feature is container orchestration. Kubernetes provides us with a mechanism to deploy or run in an automated fashion across nodes. I don't need to worry if it's running on node one or node two, it's all taken care of by Kubernetes. 

They have a very minimal interface to do certain things and that could be enhanced so that someone who is not as comfortable on CLI can also use the interface and play around with the cluster. Commercial offerings like Red Hat OpenShift offer it, but the open-source community edition from CNCF doesn't. I'd like to see an incubating project there. It's not one organization that is contributing to Kubernetes, it's a CNCF project, i.e. an open-source contributing forum.

They could possibly promote some data APIs to the production stage. They have a lot of APIs which are in beta stage which they continue to test. Perhaps it's time to upgrade them to a more product-release stage. I think it would offer peace of mind to customers in terms of stability. 

I've been using this solution for four years. 

This is a stable product if you are on a long-term support release. It's quite widely tested and used.

Kubernetes is highly scalable. We have around 150 users and it's used daily, mainly by developers and engineers. 

Kubernetes has a very active and vibrant community forum and people can join Slack Workspace and ask questions there. They announce new releases there too and people help out. If there are issues, you can open tickets, open GitHub issues and things like that.

We previously worked with Apache Hadoop but it was becoming somewhat cumbersome and complex to install.

Deployment complexity depends on the use case. I can install it on my laptop and it's easy but if it's being installed on production it needs to be set up in a cluster formation. That kind of deployment is moderately complex, and that's where we come into the picture, providing the automation for that. For someone without any knowledge in the area, deployment might require a third-party consultant or an integrator to help with that. 

I have some basic experience with Rancher and Red Hat OpenShift, which has a very nice graphical interface. An administrator, developer, or even a user can do a lot of stuff other than just seeing what applications are running. It's something that separates the commercial offerings from the community version of Kubernetes. If there were something like that in the open-source version, it would be a game changer. Of course, the commercial version also comes with hours of tech support and guides.

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.

Our use case is for everything deployed. For example, we are trying to switch from a Windows-based system to a Kubernetes Linux system. So, the entire application would be hosted on Kubernetes.

The valuable idea is that you can deploy it fast. Moreover, you have different pods that interact with each other, so you can identify problems with one pod and replace it. This way, the entire application isn't dependent on one server, avoiding issues with a single web server. There are several benefits to Kubernetes.

There is room for improvement in the setup process. 

I have been using Kubernetes for five years now. We use version 1.27.

It is a stable solution. We didn't face any problems.

It is a scalable solution. You can add more nodes and remove nodes; it's highly scalable.

 To deploy, it's just me. But for usage, there are 12 people, developers, who use it to deploy things on Kubernetes.

We have it in one place because we have a local provider. But we have a backup data center in another city, which is also owned by the same company, just in case we need a backup.

The first time it was a little bit complex because I prepared the answer bundle. But after that, I can deploy it without any problem because I have everything on hand. So it's just a matter of running a command to deploy it. It's quite straightforward now.

The solution is not entirely on-premises, but it's hosted by a local provider. We deploy it on their VM.

Kubernetes has done a good job. For example, I used Rancher 1.0, and now I am using AirKey 2, which made deployment a little easier. It has been a bit easy to do with the Rancher version. So, it's more straightforward with the recent version. There are some improvements in the newer version. 

I deployed the solution myself. Now, it takes me around half an hour. 

Moreover, I handle the maintenance of the solution. 

Kubernetes is open source, so it doesn't have any licensing cost except for OpenShift.

There may be some additional costs for infrastructure and what they provide on top, but not for Kubernetes itself. Even OpenShift charges for support.

I looked into HashiCorp.

That advice depends on the use case. For example, for us, it makes sense to use Kubernetes, but for others, it may not. It depends on what you have and how many services and applications you have that need to be integrated. For example, if you have one application, you do not need to communicate between applications, and it doesn't make sense to have Kubernetes. 

If you have multiple applications that need to work together, then Kubernetes offers features like scalability and ease of deployment can be very cool.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use the product to manage application deployment by troubleshooting and collecting logs.

The most valuable features of Kubernetes have been autoscaling and its resilience mechanisms.

The platform could be more convenient to use. While the Kubernetes CLI is powerful, the interface needs to be improved. The users often navigate between various third-party IDEs. Thus, a more consolidated or standardized interface could streamline the user experience, allowing easier access without the need to balance between multiple tools.

We have been using Kubernetes for three years.

The platform is stable. However, it depends on the cloud configuration. I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

The product is scalable. We have 20 Kubernetes users working on and deploying it. We plan to increase the usage.

We contact Microsoft in case of any queries as we are working with Azure Kubernetes services.

The complexity of the initial setup depends on Kubernetes services. It is easy to configure while working in an Azure environment. The Azure portal simplifies the process through configurations with tools like Terraform. It is complicated to create the platform on virtual machines and on-premise machines. We can deploy it within 20 to 30 minutes using data pipelines.

Microsoft provides reasonable costs for Kubernetes.

I advise others to work with Kubernetes if they are developing or running the cloud native configuration. However, there are more cost-effective solutions. I rate it a nine out of ten.