Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You might not need Kubernetes

blog.jessfraz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 319 posts

Re: You might not need Kubernetes

#31

Post by tshannon »

combatentropy wrote: post #19

Some day I would like a powwow with all you hackers about whether 99% of apps need more than a $5 droplet from Digital Ocean, set up the old-fashioned way, LAMP --- though feel free to switch out the letters: BSD instead of Linux, Nginx instead of Apache, PostgreSQL instead of MySQL, Ruby or Python instead of PHP. I manage dozens of apps for thousands of users. The apps are all on one server, its load average around…

Does hacker news really run on one server? What if server goes down?

I've always though high availability was the more important reason for multiple servers, rather than performance.

Even if you have only two paying customers, they are probably paying for the right to hit your website / service 24/7.

Re: You might not need Kubernetes

#32

Post by devman0 »

combatentropy wrote: post #19

Some day I would like a powwow with all you hackers about whether 99% of apps need more than a $5 droplet from Digital Ocean, set up the old-fashioned way, LAMP --- though feel free to switch out the letters: BSD instead of Linux, Nginx instead of Apache, PostgreSQL instead of MySQL, Ruby or Python instead of PHP. I manage dozens of apps for thousands of users. The apps are all on one server, its load average around…

I think for smaller use cases its more about high availability than load balancing.

Re: You might not need Kubernetes

#33

Post by chess44 »

I am interested in people's opinion on the "break even point" between using Kubernetes and not using Kubernetes. Let's pretend that the only options are Kubernetes and something substantially less powerful.

What is the simplest/easiest personal project where using Kubernetes might be justified?

I am a junior software engineer trying to figure out how to contextualize all of these container/container management systems.

Re: You might not need Kubernetes

#34

Post by gambler »

combatentropy wrote: post #19

Some day I would like a powwow with all you hackers about whether 99% of apps need more than a $5 droplet from Digital Ocean, set up the old-fashioned way, LAMP --- though feel free to switch out the letters: BSD instead of Linux, Nginx instead of Apache, PostgreSQL instead of MySQL, Ruby or Python instead of PHP. I manage dozens of apps for thousands of users. The apps are all on one server, its load average around…

I realize there is a need for multi-server applications with automated deployment and scaling. However, the accidental complexity of serverless setups and container orchestration tools is just off the charts. When reading these articles I get roughly the same feeling I got when reading J2EE articles back when J2EE was "the future" and "the only way to build scalable infrastructure".

Re: You might not need Kubernetes

#36

Post by lostapathy »

tshannon wrote: post #31
combatentropy wrote: post #19

Some day I would like a powwow with all you hackers about whether 99% of apps need more than a $5 droplet from Digital Ocean, set up the old-fashioned way, LAMP --- though feel free to switch out the letters: BSD instead of Linux, Nginx instead of Apache, PostgreSQL instead of MySQL, Ruby or Python instead of PHP. I manage dozens of apps for thousands of users. The apps are all on one server, its load average around…

Does hacker news really run on one server? What if server goes down? I've always though high availability was the more important reason for multiple servers, rather than performance. Even if you have only two paying customers, they are probably paying for the right to hit your website / service 24/7.

What if hacker news goes down, more work gets done for the day?

It’s really common to over estimate the cost of being down, while underestimating the costs of resiliency. And in the end if you can’t fully afford the resiliency, you end up with a system that’s more complicated and thus less stable than it could have been had you just accepted a tiny bit of risk.

Re: You might not need Kubernetes

#37

Post by segmondy »

djsumdog wrote: post #28
atleta wrote: post #16

Yeah, you probably don't. And not only that, but it probably makes your life harder. I've interviewed for a tech lead position at a company working with freelancers and I'm pretty sure the reason they ended up rejecting me was that I mentioned the technical interviewer that I think containers, container infrastructures (like Kubernetes) and even cloud infrastructure is being overused/used without giving too much thou…

I once got an interview from a company in the container space because one of their exec read an article I published talking about the trouble with container systems[1]. (Really good talk/interview, but I ended up not moving forward because I didn't want to move back to the west coast). I've been in smaller shops that wasted a lot of time on K8s stuff and fell behind on their timeline. If you want to run k8s, DC/OS, e…

4-8 dedicate staff members to run k8s? seriously, How did you come up with that number?

1) You can run k8s hosted on Google, DigitalOcean with zero effort.

2) I built a k8s cluster in 3 days with zero experience after spending a week playing with minikube, reading the docs are kuberentes.io

Re: You might not need Kubernetes

#38

Post by leetrout »

hasperdi wrote: post #27
frostyj wrote: post #13

Depends on the scale. If I only have 10 containers to manage I'd throw them on a m4 and let it be. Benefit of using k8s kicks in when your use case gets complicated.

What's m4?

AWS instance type.

"M4 instances provide a balance of compute, memory, and network resources, and it is a good choice for many applications."

https://aws.amazon.com/ec2/instance-types/

Re: You might not need Kubernetes

#39

Post by wpietri »

tshannon wrote: post #31
combatentropy wrote: post #19

Some day I would like a powwow with all you hackers about whether 99% of apps need more than a $5 droplet from Digital Ocean, set up the old-fashioned way, LAMP --- though feel free to switch out the letters: BSD instead of Linux, Nginx instead of Apache, PostgreSQL instead of MySQL, Ruby or Python instead of PHP. I manage dozens of apps for thousands of users. The apps are all on one server, its load average around…

Does hacker news really run on one server? What if server goes down? I've always though high availability was the more important reason for multiple servers, rather than performance. Even if you have only two paying customers, they are probably paying for the right to hit your website / service 24/7.

> What if server goes down?

Productivity of Y Combinator startups goes up. So YC benefits either way.

Re: You might not need Kubernetes

#40

Post by matuszeg »

tshannon wrote: post #31
combatentropy wrote: post #19

Some day I would like a powwow with all you hackers about whether 99% of apps need more than a $5 droplet from Digital Ocean, set up the old-fashioned way, LAMP --- though feel free to switch out the letters: BSD instead of Linux, Nginx instead of Apache, PostgreSQL instead of MySQL, Ruby or Python instead of PHP. I manage dozens of apps for thousands of users. The apps are all on one server, its load average around…

Does hacker news really run on one server? What if server goes down? I've always though high availability was the more important reason for multiple servers, rather than performance. Even if you have only two paying customers, they are probably paying for the right to hit your website / service 24/7.

Has hacker news ever gone down? I cant remember it ever going dkwnt but I assume it has to have at some point.
Post reply on HN