Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mind blowing to me that "Heroku but with docker images" doesn't seem to exist. Would love to be corrected!
That's pretty much Cloud Run, no? https://cloud.google.com/run/
Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex
371–380 of 449 posts
Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex
#372Earlier quoted context omitted.
A friend of mine is a contributor to k8s itself, and of course, this all comes incredibly easy to them. Following their recommendation, I gave it a shot for my single-person, single-node (!) homelab, all without using MicroK8s, k3s or similar. After a week of almost full-time work, I threw in the towel. Admittedly, I also had to learn concepts like reverse proxies alongside, too, so I was by no means well-equipped to…
Yeah, of course running random docker compose files and containers from the internet and blissfully exposing your mongodb or whatnot service unsecured to the whole world seems like an easy, non-complicated alternative. Kubernetes has a few shitty defaults, like exposing a service account for all pods by default or allowing to mutate pod image tags, but most of the functionality it provides is a must have when you act…
I am talking about a homelab, a single server at home, for home use. It's much safer now, with Docker compose, because I understand it and I wrote the core exposed part's configuration, the Caddyfile, myself, manually. I know exactly what's exposed, and it's exactly right the way it is!
The remaining risk comes from the services themselves having security holes, but k8s has that very same risk.
Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex
#373If you're going from "our app is running directly in tomcat in our on-prem data center" to "we want to move to a mirco-services architecture with a service mesh, canary deployments, multi-cluster observability, fault injection, automatic global failover, etc...", you're almost certainly going to have a bad time.
I really like the concept of "innovation tokens" [0] here. Pick one or two big innovations at a time and don't add more until you're comfortable with what you have. Get your app running in docker first, and then get it running in a basic k8s setup first instead of leapfrogging to the more advanced stuff. Chances are if you didn't need a service mesh for your original non-k8s deployment, you probably don't need one for the v1.0 first pass of your k8s rollout.
Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex
#374Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with you. However, after spending years and years trying to compile software that came with cryptic install instructions. Or have the author insist that since it works on their machine I 'm just doing something stupid. Docker was largely able to fix that. It's a somewhat odd solution for a too common problem, but any solution is still better than dealing with such an annoying problem. (source: made docker the…
Completely agree. The whole compile chain for most software and reliance on linked libraries, implicit dependencies like locale settings changing behavior, basically decades of weird accidents and hacks to get around memory and disk size limits, can be a nightmare to deal with. If using slow dynamic languages, or modern frontend bunglers, all the implicit c extension compilations and dependencies can still be a pain.…
./configure
make
At a prompt, then install missing libs. Unless you have to maintain updates regularly, “It’s just so hard” seems like a damn meme.
Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex
#375I remember trying out docker sometime back in late 2013. Something about it never fully stuck with me. I always felt like the final boundary for a piece software should be the process, not the computer. Plopping an entire VM into a zipfile and saying "here's your software" felt like lazy engineering to many of us at the time (and still today). For our current stack, the answer has been to make the entire business app…
Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex
#376Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I used Docker for embedded. 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” t…
Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex
#377Earlier quoted context omitted.
By that logic, processes are arguably virtualisation too. They do after all use virtual memory. Threads, processes and containers exist on a continuum.
Indeed they are! The notion that each process has its separate address space is called virtual memory for that reason. See also cgroups: while this feature is used by the container run times, it predates Docker, and can be used standalone with normal processes.
If only I had realised that could have been useful for more than testing npm packages...
Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
Completely agree. The whole compile chain for most software and reliance on linked libraries, implicit dependencies like locale settings changing behavior, basically decades of weird accidents and hacks to get around memory and disk size limits, can be a nightmare to deal with. If using slow dynamic languages, or modern frontend bunglers, all the implicit c extension compilations and dependencies can still be a pain.…
I don’t know. I cant take anyone seriously who says it’s hard to type ./configure make At a prompt, then install missing libs. Unless you have to maintain updates regularly, “It’s just so hard” seems like a damn meme.
Yeah, it happens with .so files, .dlls ("dll hell"), package managers and more. But that's where things like containers come in to help: "I tested Library Foo version V3.4 and that's what you get in the docker". No issues with Foo V3.5 or V3.6 causing issues... just get exactly what the developer tested on their box.
Be it a .dll, a .so, a #include library, some version of Python (2.7 with import six), some crazy version of a Ruby Gem that just won't work on Debian for some reason (but works on Red Hat)... etc. etc.
Re: Google admits Kubernetes container tech is too complex
#379I work on a 3-person DevOps team that just finished migrating ~20 services from GCE vms running docker-compose to GKE. It's taken us a little over a year. Partly because K8s has a steep learning curve, but also because safely transitioning services without disrupting product teams adds a lot of overhead. The investment is already yielding great returns. Developers are happy. Actual quote: "Kubernetes is the biggest q…
... Until they hire you back because entropy exists :P I'm on the DevOps side as well going through the same transition, k8s also allows insane customization, and I have some colleagues that are delaying our rollout unintentionally so they can play around with developing more tooling for deployments which is really frustrating. The k8s scene seems to be filled with constant scope creep and refactoring to get it just…
They hire other people with the supposedly same skillstack and then have them rebuild it from scratch.