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

Google Kubernetes Engine is introducing a cluster management fee on June 6

cloud.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 633 posts

Re: Google Kubernetes Engine is introducing a cluster management fee on June 6

#541

Post by Glyptodon »

dahfizz wrote: post #463
olafure wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$3600/year is significant for a startup on a shoestring budget.

Then manage k8s yourself. Or, better yet, don't use k8s. You don't need it, especially as a startup on a shoestring budget. You can migrate later if you decide you really need to, but just a plain LAMP gets you 99% of the way.

If there were a lower complexity way to deploy containerized apps supported widely I think tons of people would go for it. Currently there's not really much of a middle ground between Cloud Run and K8s offered. It's kind of absurd, honestly.

Re: Google Kubernetes Engine is introducing a cluster management fee on June 6

#543

Post by gigatexal »

This is not cool. One of the best parts of GCP is that the control plane is free for k8s. :( this change is simply a money grab at least optically.

How does the exemption for anthos clusters work? If I enable it on my cluster but it’s still a GCP native cluster and not on non-premises one, am I still billed?

Re: Google Kubernetes Engine is introducing a cluster management fee on June 6

#544

Post by merb »

sethvargo wrote: post #28
sladey wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't that be opt-in? The management control plane is not something we consider critical to operations. I'd happily accept if it was unavailable for 1 and a half minutes a day versus these additional costs.

That's great feedback. I'll relay that to the product team. IANAL, but I think it would be legally challenging.

btw. I would prefer to have something like a cost reduce if the cluster runs 24/7. Currently we also do not need that amount of SLA. but we actually have a single cluster and are a really small customer that reall choose GKE, because of no management fee (i.e. nodes are really expensive compared to non cloud providers). But we never used more than one REGIONAL cluster (we also never spun up a new one, we only change workers). And now it will cost us money. What a shame.

P.S.: german sites have the pricing wrong.

Re: Google Kubernetes Engine is introducing a cluster management fee on June 6

#545

Post by alexeldeib »

iampims wrote: post #501
jrockway wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's probably not worth $75/month to prevent developer A's pod from interfering with developer B's pod due to an exploit in gVisor, the linux kernel, the hypervisor, or the CPU microcode. Those exploits do exist (remember Spectre and Meltdown), but probably aren't relevant to 99% of workloads. Ultimately, all isolation has its limits. Traditional VMs suffer from hypervisor exploits. Dedicated machines suffer from net…

It doesn't have to be malicious. File Descriptors aren't part of the isolation offered by cgroups, a misconfigured pod can exhaust FDs on the entire underlying Node and severely impact all other pods running on that node. Network isn't isolated either. You can saturate the network on a node by downloading large amount of data from maybe GCS/S3 and impact all pods on the node. I agree with most things you’ve said arou…

IOPS and disk bandwidth aren't currently well protected either.

Re: Google Kubernetes Engine is introducing a cluster management fee on June 6

#547

Post by Glyptodon »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #317
atombender wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just a data point: I'm the CTO at a very small company. All our stuff is running on GKE. Our monthly bill tends is a lot less than $10,000/mo. We're currently in the process of splitting our stack into separate projects and clusters, because co-locating projects in a single cluster has gotten messy. We'll probably end up with 4-5. That will increase our bill by $292/mo, worst case, assuming the first cluster is free.…

Not sure what size a "very small company" size is, but I'm just curious as to why you chose GKE. I make tech decisions for a (probably) much smaller company, and I found things like App Engine Flexible Environment, Cloud Run and Cloud Functions let me do much of the stuff I can do with k8s but with much, much less complexity (at least on my side of things). The main factor is that I don't have a full-time infrastruct…

So let's say you have a small pile of apps that are all , , , , , but not all the same DB, language, etc. They're all low traffic and you want to automate/simplify and containerize them. On developer machines docker compose works great, but you need to deploy in a cloud provider. What are choice do you have other than K8s?

Re: Google Kubernetes Engine is introducing a cluster management fee on June 6

#548

Post by patrec »

sethvargo wrote: post #129
rolleiflex wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seth — I appreciate you being here to take feedback, and for the clarification as well. The very surprising email I’ve received this morning is very hazy on the details, and the docs linked from the email are not updated yet. The main issue is that not charging for the control plane and charging for the control plane leads to two very different Kubernetes architectures, and as per your docs, those decisions made at t…

Thank you These changes won't take effect until June - customers won't start getting billed immediately. I'm sorry that you feel trapped, that's not our intention. > You should keep existing clusters in the pricing model they’ve been built in, and apply this change for clusters created after today. This is great feedback, but clusters should be treated like cattle, not pets. I'd love to learn more about why your clus…

> clusters should be treated like cattle, not pets

So my understanding that the official k8s way to upgrade your cluster is also to throw it away and start a new one (with some cloud provider proprietary alternatives).

Let's say there is something actually important, stateful, single-source-of-truth in my k8s cluster, like a relational DB that must not lose data. I don't want downtime for readers or writers, and I want at least one synchronous slave at all times (since the data is important). I also don't want to eat non-trivial latency overheads from setting up layers of indirection.

What's the recommended way of doing this?

Re: Google Kubernetes Engine is introducing a cluster management fee on June 6

#549

Post by fluuuhi »

yoshiat wrote: post #438
zomglings wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On GKE, you can use a single cluster with multiple node pools to achieve a similar effect. Just set the right affinity on your job resources.

PTAL at doing Multi-Tenancy in GKE! https://cloud.google.com/kubernetes-engine/docs/best-practic... We don't recommend using node pools for isolation.

If it is only workload isolation, why not?

Re: Google Kubernetes Engine is introducing a cluster management fee on June 6

#550

Post by jiggawatts »

sethvargo wrote: post #154
rolleiflex wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is great feedback, but clusters should be treated like cattle, not pets. I'd love to learn more about why your clusters must be so static. What’s inside our clusters are indeed cattle, but the clusters themselves do carry a lot of config that is set via GCP UI for trivial things like firewall rules. Of course we could script it and automate, but your CLI tool also changes fast enough that it becomes an ongoing…

Hmm - have you considered a tool like Terraform or Deployment manager for creating the clusters? In general, it's best practice to capture that configuration as code.

Cloud providers assume everyone is just like them, or like Netflix: Load balancers in clusters balancing groups of clusters. Clusters of clusters. Many regions. Many availability zones. Anything can be lost, because an individual data centre is just 5% of the total, right?

Meanwhile most of my large government customers have a couple of tiny VMs for every website. That's it. That's already massive overkill because they see 10% max load, so they're wasting money on the rest of the resources that are there only for redundancy. Taking things to the next level would be almost absurd, but turning things off unnecessarily is still an outage.

This is why I don't believe any of the Cloud providers are ready for enterprise customers. None of you get it.

Post reply on HN