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

Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex

theregister.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 449 posts

Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex

#91

Post by dilyevsky »

imhoguy wrote: post #26
syrusakbary wrote: post #21

Kubernetes adds a vast amount of complexity, and in my rationale is because it centers scaling on the wrong unit (the Operating System). Docker introduced a great level of abstraction and reproducibility over platforms. However, Docker (or OS-based containers) are the most atomic unit of computation on Kubernetes. Which causes centering scaling on the Instance, instead of the Application or even the functions. This l…

So we circle back to app servers like Java EE WAR/EAR stuff.

Ikr? Enter weblogic/websphere java ee (bleh)

Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex

#92

Post by warent »

te_chris wrote: post #80
grey-area wrote: post #67

I can understand the use of kubernetes in very large orgs to manage clusters of hundreds of nodes, but it seems to me the complexity isn’t justified if you only have 1-100 say. There are lots of possibilities between 1 server and 100, and lots of ways to have simple replicable deploys if your needs are simple (probably 95% of businesses). Simple load balancers without auto-scaling work fine! For smaller non-critical…

No, but it’s not just complexity. We’re a small company, but after spending about a month to setup our GKE a couple of years ago (incl learning terraform in the process), it’s been rock solid, low involvement and reliable. Declarative resource specification is a legitimate game changer and you couldn’t pay me to go back.

I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted unless people are afraid that you're sponsored by Google. Your experience aligns with mine. Running a SaaS app by myself that serves heavy loads around 1 rps with burst of 400+ rps, k8s works really great for my use case.

But I grant you, it has been a very complex, painful journey to get this working right, and in fact I'm still making tweaks and adjustments. Plus, often times it's really unclear if I should scale vertically or horizontally.

Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex

#93

Post by syrusakbary »

loic-sharma wrote: post #82
syrusakbary wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the exception that Wasm apps are based on a open standard, almost any language can target it, are more lightweight, and they can also run on the browser :)

I’m not sure I agree with the lightweight point. WebAssembly is missing features needed by many high-level languages. As a result, they have to resort to less than ideal tricks. For example, C# on WebAssembly runs using an interpreter even though normally it is JIT compiled.

> WebAssembly is missing features needed by many high-level languages

Agreed, although at some point in a not very far feature most of those missing features will resolved. So in my mind is just a matter of time.

The Wasm Community group is doing an awesome work on that :)

Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex

#95

Post by zapita »

ivanb wrote: post #75
zapita wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Containers don’t have to be complex. Docker and docker-compose are very simple to use. Docker swarm (rip) and Nomad are similar to kubernetes but orders or magnitude simpler.

Docker Swarm mode is alive and well and not going anywhere. It's right there, built into the regular Docker CLI.

That is great news. Thank you.

Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex

#96

Post by FlyingSnake »

endymi0n wrote: post #71
fen4o wrote: post #13

I 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…

I fully agree with your points and would sum them up as "Kubernetes has a steep learning curve, a (quite) large interface and ample opportunities to shoot yourself into the foot with it" (plus, they're very funny). However playing the devil's advocate here: If you actually took the steps of learning the basic abstractions, then for me it's really hard to see what you could still get rid of. If you actually go all-in…

> If you actually took the steps of learning the basic abstractions, then for me it's really hard to see what you could still get rid of.

This argument basically sums up to "Developers just need discipline, and stop blaming the tools". While this is a sound argument on paper, the intrinsic complexity of software systems make it hard to pin the blame on developers. BTW This is the same argument Uncle Bob makes which is not so popular with many mainstream developers.

You're right about feature creep in k8s though.

Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex

#97

Post by jillesvangurp »

trinovantes wrote: post #36

Kubernetes 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.

It's the right attitude. The management fees alone for this autopilot thing are 0.10$ per hour. Or about 70$/month. It's a bargain considering all the hidden costs kubernetes imposes in terms of requiring people that know how to tame the complexity associated with it (i.e. very expensive devops people costing magnitudes more than that). Automating those people away is worth money.

I like Cloud Run for the same reason because I can use it without needing a lot of devops skills in my team or without sacrificing my own time (because I have those skills but have more valuable things to do). It allows me to focus on keeping my CI/CD pipeline (cloud run sets that up with a button click) busy with new functionality. And our hosting cost are close to 0$ because we stay below the freemium layer until we actually need to scale.

Edit. corrected the typo 700->70

Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex

#98

Post by mkl »

dontblink wrote: post #45
monsieurbanana wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm looking for something like that, but I'm afraid of using any google developer services, such as GCP, for personal projects. What if I breach their TOS somehow and get banned, or what if I didn't breach their TOS and still get banned? Can't afford to test my luck until I've finished migrating all my accounts off my gmail.

Why don't you just create a new Google Account specifically for this?

Doesn't that require another active SIM card?

Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex

#99

Post by [deleted] »

HenryKissinger wrote: post #15
trestenhortz wrote: post #12

This was glaringly obvious from day one. Containers add vast complexity, add another layer of complexity on top.

Can you explain the whole concept of Kubernetes to someone whose knowledge of computers is limited to making simple webpages with HTML and using Excel/VBA?

[deleted]
Post reply on HN