• cley_faye@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    17 hours ago

    I don’t like the approach of piling more things on top of even more things to achieve the same goal as the base, frankly speaking. A “local” kubernetes cluster serve no purpose other than incredible complexity for little to no gain over a mere docker-compose. And a small cluster would work equally well with docker swarm.

    A service, even made of multiple parts, should always be described that way. It’s easy to move “up” the stack of complexity, if you so desire. Having “have a k8s cluster with helm” working as the base requirement sounds insane to me.

    • mac@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      Honestly, a lot of the time I don’t understand why a lot of businesses use k8s.

      At my company especially, we know almost exactly what our traffic will look like from 9am-5pm. We don’t really need flexible scaling, yet we still use it because the technology is hyped. Similar to cloud, we certainly don’t need to be spending as much as we do, but since everyone else is on or migrating to the cloud, we are as well.

      • loudwhisper@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Kubernetes is not really meant primarily for scaling. Even kubernetes clusters require autoscaling groups on nodes to support it, for example, or horizontal pod autoscalers, but they are minor features.

        The benefits are pooling computing resources and creating effectively a private cloud. Easy replication of applications in case of hardware failure. Single language to deploy applications, network controls, etc.