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

Turing Pi: Kubernetes Cluster on Your Desk

turingpi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 65 posts

Re: Turing Pi: Kubernetes Cluster on Your Desk

#21

Post by rconti »

rubyn00bie wrote: post #14

While Raspberry Pi's are awesome, and the power consumption is nothing to scoff at (when considering a cluster), you can accomplish this same thing for a lot less, and have quite a lot more compute power, by purchasing a used server or even something like an AMD 3600X... A single 3600X will grossly outperform this cluster (and cost less) with less headaches (you don't have N physical machines) by using KVM to deploy…

As a project, I like the idea of having the nodes be separate, because endless layers of virtual things makes it harder to grop what's truly going on, IMO.

Also, gotta factor in electricity hosts.

Re: Turing Pi: Kubernetes Cluster on Your Desk

#22

Post by apple4ever »

tlrobinson wrote: post #10

Note the $189 price tag doesn't include the Raspberry Pi compute modules, which are about $30-40 each. It's a neat form factor but you could just buy some regular Raspberry Pis and an Ethernet switch.

I thought it was $189 for the whole kit and caboodle, but as you said its not.

$189 is a little expensive for what you get.

Re: Turing Pi: Kubernetes Cluster on Your Desk

#23

Post by sgt »

tlrobinson wrote: post #10

Note the $189 price tag doesn't include the Raspberry Pi compute modules, which are about $30-40 each. It's a neat form factor but you could just buy some regular Raspberry Pis and an Ethernet switch.

That's without eMMC though. Having a bunch if normal Pi's running SD cards would end up in tears at some point.

Re: Turing Pi: Kubernetes Cluster on Your Desk

#24

Post by nsky-world »

rubyn00bie wrote: post #18
bproven wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you mean using a ryzen with VMs (cluster on one ryzen) I assume? bc cost of ryzan as a node would be pretty pricey compared to Pi 4s.

Yes, a single ryzen node running multiple VMs.

So, you don't see a difference between clustering on physically separated nodes and VM?

Re: Turing Pi: Kubernetes Cluster on Your Desk

#25

Post by nsky-world »

kube-system wrote: post #15

This is neat, but I'm really more interested to hear about potential use cases. I'm guessing this is mostly useful for ARM workloads? Maybe some situations with low power requirements? Personally, for my multi-node test clusters, I just run VMs on cheap x86 hardware.

What's the practical point of running containers on VM?

Re: Turing Pi: Kubernetes Cluster on Your Desk

#26

Post by LargoLasskhyfv »

There is also the https://www.pine64.org/clusterboard/ for $99 which takes these modules https://www.pine64.org/sopine/ at $29 a piece, which are quad-core ARM Cortex A53 with 2GB LPDDR3. This is their wiki: https://wiki.pine64.org/index.php/PINE_A64-LTS/SOPine

Re: Turing Pi: Kubernetes Cluster on Your Desk

#27

Post by dahfizz »

hinkley wrote: post #19
rubyn00bie wrote: post #14

While Raspberry Pi's are awesome, and the power consumption is nothing to scoff at (when considering a cluster), you can accomplish this same thing for a lot less, and have quite a lot more compute power, by purchasing a used server or even something like an AMD 3600X... A single 3600X will grossly outperform this cluster (and cost less) with less headaches (you don't have N physical machines) by using KVM to deploy…

The other part of 'on your desk' is hearing damage. Server hardware vendors have traditionally not given two shits about their servers being north of 90 decibels, and I'm pretty sure I've witnessed a few that were pushing 100. That Raspberry Pi is probably going to absorb more noise than it makes.

Is there any reason you need a kubernetes cluster literally on your desk?

Isn't the whole point of using these layers of abstraction over hardware that you pay someone else to manage it?

The only times I can imagine needing hardware on my desk are when latency is super important or when I constantly need to manipulate the hardware (change hardware, play in bios, etc). In either case, I would not use k8s to run my software.

Re: Turing Pi: Kubernetes Cluster on Your Desk

#28

Post by oso2k »

hinkley wrote: post #19
rubyn00bie wrote: post #14

While Raspberry Pi's are awesome, and the power consumption is nothing to scoff at (when considering a cluster), you can accomplish this same thing for a lot less, and have quite a lot more compute power, by purchasing a used server or even something like an AMD 3600X... A single 3600X will grossly outperform this cluster (and cost less) with less headaches (you don't have N physical machines) by using KVM to deploy…

The other part of 'on your desk' is hearing damage. Server hardware vendors have traditionally not given two shits about their servers being north of 90 decibels, and I'm pretty sure I've witnessed a few that were pushing 100. That Raspberry Pi is probably going to absorb more noise than it makes.

You could also go down the path of buying one or more Dell Optiplex SFF or Micros (9020s or better). 8 threads and 32GB of RAM (and better) per box and not a lot bigger than Pi in a case.

Re: Turing Pi: Kubernetes Cluster on Your Desk

#29

Post by corndoge »

rubyn00bie wrote: post #14

While Raspberry Pi's are awesome, and the power consumption is nothing to scoff at (when considering a cluster), you can accomplish this same thing for a lot less, and have quite a lot more compute power, by purchasing a used server or even something like an AMD 3600X... A single 3600X will grossly outperform this cluster (and cost less) with less headaches (you don't have N physical machines) by using KVM to deploy…

Yes, but this looks super cool on your desk

Re: Turing Pi: Kubernetes Cluster on Your Desk

#30

Post by dahfizz »

nsky-world wrote: post #24
rubyn00bie wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, a single ryzen node running multiple VMs.

So, you don't see a difference between clustering on physically separated nodes and VM?

Not in this case, no. The physically separate nodes are so low power and still share significant points of failure that it doesn't matter.
Post reply on HN