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

I Didn't Need Kubernetes, and You Probably Don't Either

benhouston3d.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 436 posts

Re: I Didn't Need Kubernetes, and You Probably Don't Either

#311

Post by gizzlon »

valenterry wrote: post #12
lkrubner wrote: post #3

Interesting that the mania for over-investment in devops is beginning to abate. Here on Hacker News I was a steady critic of both Docker and Kubernetes, going to at least 2017, but most of these posts were unpopular. I have to go back to 2019 to find one that sparked a conversation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20371961 The stuff I posted about Kubernetes did not draw a conversation, but I was simply document…

So, let's say you want to deploy server instances. Let's keep it simple and say you want to have 2 instances running. You want to have zero-downtime-deployment. And you want to have these 2 instances be able to access configuration (that contains secrets). You want load balancing, with the option to integrate an external load balancer. And, last, you want to be able to run this setup both locally and also on at least…

Cloud Run. Did you read the article?

Migrating to another cloud should be quite easy. There are many PaaS solutions. The hard parts will be things like migrating the data, make sure there's no downtime AND no drift/diff in the underlying data when some clients write to Cloud-A and some write to CLoud-B, etc. But k8 do not fix these problems, so..

Re: I Didn't Need Kubernetes, and You Probably Don't Either

#312

Post by raxxorraxor »

tapoxi wrote: post #102
tombert wrote: post #90

I’ve come to the conclusion that I hate “cloud shit”, and a small part of me is convinced that literally no one actually likes it, and everyone is playing a joke on me. I have set up about a dozen rack mount servers in my life, installing basically every flavor of Unix and Linux and message busses under the sun in the process, but I still get confused by all the Kubectl commands and GCP integration with it. I might j…

This read as "old man yells at cloud" to me. I've managed a few thousand VMs in the past, and I'm extremely grateful for it. An image is built in CI, service declares what it needs, the scheduler just handles shit. I'm paged significantly less and things are predictable and consistent unlike the world of VMs where even your best attempt at configuration management would result in drift, because the CM system is only…

I think it is also a difference between developer and IT. Usually the requirements don't ask for thousands of VMs if you don't run some kind of data center or a company that specializes on software services.

Re: I Didn't Need Kubernetes, and You Probably Don't Either

#313

Post by sgarland »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #231
jmb99 wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have pretty much the exact same opinion, right down to “cloud shit” (I have even used that exact term at work to multiple levels of management, specifically “I’m not working on cloud shit, you know what I like working on and I’ll do pretty much anything else, but no cloud shit”). I have worked on too many projects where all you need is a 4-8 vCPU VM running nginx and some external database, but for some reasons the…

These comments: > He didn’t believe it was possible to have this kind of performance in a “legacy monolithic” (his words) application. > I think it’s so heavily ingrained in most cloud/web developers that this is the only option that they will not even entertain the thought that it can be done another way. One thing that I need to remind myself of periodically: The amount of work that a modern 1U server can do in 202…

Hell, the amount of work that an OLD 1U can do is absurd. I have 3x Dell R620s (circa-2012), and when equipped with NVMe drives, they match the newest RDS instances, and blow Aurora out of the water.

I’ve tested this repeatedly, at multiple companies, with Postgres and MySQL. Everyone thinks Aurora must be faster because AWS is pushing it so hard; in fact, it’s quite slow. Hard to get around physics. My drives are mounted via Ceph over Infiniband, and have latency measured in microseconds. Aurora (and RDS for that matter) has to traverse much longer physical distances to talk to its drives.

Re: I Didn't Need Kubernetes, and You Probably Don't Either

#314

Post by [deleted] »

tombert wrote: post #90

I’ve come to the conclusion that I hate “cloud shit”, and a small part of me is convinced that literally no one actually likes it, and everyone is playing a joke on me. I have set up about a dozen rack mount servers in my life, installing basically every flavor of Unix and Linux and message busses under the sun in the process, but I still get confused by all the Kubectl commands and GCP integration with it. I might j…

[deleted]

Re: I Didn't Need Kubernetes, and You Probably Don't Either

#315

Post by nixpulvis »

mrweasel wrote: post #209
tombert wrote: post #90

I’ve come to the conclusion that I hate “cloud shit”, and a small part of me is convinced that literally no one actually likes it, and everyone is playing a joke on me. I have set up about a dozen rack mount servers in my life, installing basically every flavor of Unix and Linux and message busses under the sun in the process, but I still get confused by all the Kubectl commands and GCP integration with it. I might j…

I wouldn't throw "cloud shit" in the same bucket as Kubernetes. Professional cloud services are mostly great, but super expensive. Kubernetes is interesting, because it basically takes everything you know and sort of pushes it down the stack (or up, depending on your viewpoint). To some extend I get the impression that the idea was: Wouldn't it be great if we took all the infrastructure stuff, and just merged the who…

What do you think its niche is?

Re: I Didn't Need Kubernetes, and You Probably Don't Either

#318

Post by rbanffy »

carlmr wrote: post #210
voidfunc wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always kind of blown away by experiences like this. Admittedly, I've been using Kubernetes since the early days and I manage an Infra team that operates a couple thousand self-managed Kubernetes clusters so... expert blindness at work. Before that I did everything from golden images to pushing changes via rsync and kicking a script to deploy. Maybe it's because I adopted early and have grown with the technology i…

>expert blindness at work. >It's not that complicated if you limit yourself to the core stuff. Isn't this the core problem with a lot of technologies. There's a right way to use it, but most ways are wrong. An expert will not look left and right anymore, but to anyone entering the technology with fresh eyes it's a field with abundance of landmines to navigate around. It's simply bad UX and documentation. It could pro…

> There's a right way to use it, but most ways are wrong.

This is my biggest complaint. There is no simple obvious way to set it up. There is no "sane default" config.

> It's better to run minkube and get to know k8s first.

Indeed. It should be trivial to set up a cluster from bare metal - nothing more than a `dnf install` and some other command to configure core functionality and to join machines into that cluster. Even when you go the easy way (with, say, Docker Desktop) you need to do a lot of steps just to have an ingress router.

Re: I Didn't Need Kubernetes, and You Probably Don't Either

#320

Post by gizzlon »

czhu12 wrote: post #44

I'm not sure google cloud run can be considered a fair comparison to Kubernetes. It would be like saying AWS Lambda is a lot easier to use than EC2. I've used both Kubernetes and GCR at the current company I cofounded, and theres pros and cons to both. (Team of about 10 engineers) GCR was simple to run simple workloads, but, an out of the box Postgres database can't just handle unlimited connections and so connecting…

> an out of the box Postgres database can't just handle unlimited connections and so connecting to it from GCR without having a DB connection proxy like PG bouncer risks exhausting the connection pool.

Good point. How many connections can it handle? Seems like it's up to 262142 in theory? Or am I reading this wrong: https://cloud.google.com/sql/docs/postgres/flags#postgres-m ??

But even 1000 seems ok? 1 per container, so 1000 running containers? Quite a lot in my world, especially since they can be quite beefy. Would be very worried about the cost way before 1000 simultaneously running containers :)

Post reply on HN