99.9 percent uptime for pods? That's 10 minutes downtime per week. We use simple VMs (on Google Cloud) at work and deploy services to them using Nix, and they have much less downtime than this. Does Kubernetes make it so difficult to do better than 99.9?
Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex
61–70 of 449 posts
Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex
#62Not seeing anyone mention it, so I'll just share: https://k8slens.dev/ Lens has been a huge boon for helping us manage our kube cluster and regular devops operations, and even 15 minutes with it helped me grok a number of complex kubernetes concepts that I've struggled with for awhile now. Everyone who works with k8s for a living should at least know of this tool imho its fantastic with prometheus
Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex
#63What happened to "focus on the business logic / application"? Are we just making rabbit holes out of rabbit holes of abstraction using kubernetes? I just use and push code to Heroku and I'm done for the day, simple. NoOps I call it. I wish more tools and platforms were like this.
My background is in embedded, so I admittedly know extremely little about web development, but whenever I'm curious and sit down to read about microservices and containers and orchestration and all that stuff, my mind starts to numb and I can't help but conclude that 99% of companies that use it probably don't need to. And that they're just a complex way for engineers to keep themselves spinning their wheels and not…
Running a cluster across your IOT fleet (1k+ devices; 5-10 apps each) gives a nice interface for pushing out tasks, choosing applications for a device, configuring supervisor-device relationships, etc. It turns out from scratch Docker containers on ARM are very portable.
I think you’re being dramatic — embedded is notorious for crazy builds of weird config flags to even get “hello world” to compile, and you’re waving your arms pretending that concepts from Erlang abstracted away from the language are too much.
Docker is just cgroups and namespaces, with a zip file of code. More or less literally.
Orchestration is the same mess it’s always been — back to at least the telephone days, when Erlang used the same concepts.
Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex
#64What happened to "focus on the business logic / application"? Are we just making rabbit holes out of rabbit holes of abstraction using kubernetes? I just use and push code to Heroku and I'm done for the day, simple. NoOps I call it. I wish more tools and platforms were like this.
Mind blowing to me that "Heroku but with docker images" doesn't seem to exist. Would love to be corrected!
Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex
#65Kubernetes has to be most complex software I've ever tried to learn. I eventually gave up and decided to stick with simple single machine docker-compose deployments. I figure by the time any of my personal projects actually need to scale beyond 1 machine, I'd probably have enough revenue that I can afford to hire someone else to worry about it.
I’d recommend giving Docker Swarm + Traefik a shot. It’s dead simple to set up manually and has very little “magic” in how things work under the hood. Plus much of your existing Docker Compose config will work out of the box. It vastly simplified the deployment process too. I previously avoided Docker Swarm for ages since I assumed it involved the same level of complexity as k8s. I also initially figured that managed…
My only complaint with Swarm is there isn't an easy way to expose containers directly on the network (like host networking). I have a few containers (wireguard and minidlna) which need this, so those are running through docker-compose. I've tried macvlan but wasn't able to get that working in Swarm mode.
Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex
#66I can't fight the feeling that this is all circling back to the application server stuff that was popular for a time. And, really, I can't tell when those went so wrong. :(
The circle of tech: 1. Someone has an idea. It's alright. Really good for their use case. Someone else hears about it, likes it, and adapts it to a similar use case. So and so forth until the idea has a large user base 2. Employees of large companies hear about the idea and implement it 3. Marketing gets a hold of the idea, gives it a flashy name, and uses it in promotions 4. A majority of the loudest voices in the i…
Most of the software tech world is bullshit. Most best practices are bullshit. And, if I were feeling a bit conspiratorial, I'd say the large tech companies do this on purpose. They promote fads that overburden any smaller company with more modest budgets, thus keeping competitors at an arm's length. Resume-driven-development plays a role in this as well.
A lot of companies following the FAANG cargo cult are digging their own grave and don't even know it. They don't realize they don't have the manpower for microservices. Or the calendar time to make it work and still get product out the door before their competitor that doesn't even unit test eats their entire lunch.
Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex
#67Simple load balancers without auto-scaling work fine!
For smaller non-critical services sometimes even one reliable server is an acceptable trade-off.
Do most companies really need kubernetes given the complexity and difficulty it introduces?
Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex
#68I understand their rationale. We manage thousand Kubernetes clusters and end-users can find lots and lots of creative way to shoot themselves in the foot: - I can store anything in a secret? Let's have thousands of cat images. Etcd then stops working because we have over 2GB of funny cats in the key store. - I can run a root Pod? Lets mount the docker socket and start building images with it. Oh and by the way, I nev…
Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex
#69Perhaps the enterprise class stuff is always just for large division of labor efforts. Like the "Liberty" stuff from WebSphere perhaps this really just saying if smaller groups and less people want to mess with it, it should have some new thought around more consolidated abstractions.
Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex
#70Honestly, I'm not sure Kubernetes is it. K8s seems like a leaky implementation detail when what people want is just to virtualize a workload (with similar simplicity to Docker) and have it work wherever the standard 'workload virtualiser' runs.