We just raised a $30M Series A: Read our story

Kubernetes OverviewUNIXBusinessApplication

Kubernetes is #1 ranked solution in Container Management software. IT Central Station users give Kubernetes an average rating of 8 out of 10. Kubernetes is most commonly compared to VMware Tanzu Build Service:Kubernetes vs VMware Tanzu Build Service. The top industry researching this solution are professionals from a computer software company, accounting for 31% of all views.
What is Kubernetes?

Kubernetes (K8s) is an open-source system for automating deployment, scaling, and management of containerized applications.
It groups containers that make up an application into logical units for easy management and discovery. Kubernetes builds upon 15 years of experience of running production workloads at Google, combined with best-of-breed ideas and practices from the community.

Kubernetes was previously known as K8.

Kubernetes Buyer's Guide

Download the Kubernetes Buyer's Guide including reviews and more. Updated: November 2021

Kubernetes Customers
China unicom, NetEase Cloud, Nav, AppDirect
Kubernetes Video

Pricing Advice

What users are saying about Kubernetes pricing:
  • "The management layer is free, which is perfect. You don't need to pay money for the management layer, but in AWS develop service, you need to pay. I think it is €75 per month for the management layer. It is free here, so you can have as many Kubernetes clusters as you need. You are paying just for the workload, that is, for the machine, CPU, memory, and everything."
  • "The solution is affordable."
  • "Google Kubernetes Engine is free in the simplest setup, AWS Kubernetes Engine costs about $50 (depending on the region), in a three master setup, so it's almost the same as the cost of the EC2 instances and it's totally fine from my point of view."

Kubernetes Reviews

Filter by:
Filter Reviews
Industry
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Company Size
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Job Level
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Rating
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Considered
Loading...
Filter Unavailable
Order by:
Loading...
  • Date
  • Highest Rating
  • Lowest Rating
  • Review Length
Search:
Showingreviews based on the current filters. Reset all filters
Mangesh Abnave
Learning Manager at a educational organization with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 20
Offers security, scalability, and high availability

Pros and Cons

  • "The product is highly scalable."
  • "They need to focus on more security internally."

What is our primary use case?

There are many use cases. It's a concept of microservices-based architecture. You will find that Kubernetes is the most reliable solution. I work for a digital advertising company, for example. When you have advertisements that are served on the top of a website, or a sidebar or something, you fill those spaces with digital advertisements. It's a complete market product, and our end customers are media houses and advertisement agencies.

We are using 600 or 700 or more microservices on microservice-based architecture, and, in order to run the microservices, we use the container-based technique as it is a much more reliable platform. It's more secure due to the use of isolation techniques. Currently, we are running an almost 190 node cluster. That is a very big cluster.

This is how it is used in an advertising context: if there is a cricket game being streamed on a web portal, which has a very high viewership, a lot of companies will want to promote their ads while this particular match is playing. The portal itself is responsible for managing its streaming activity. At the same time, our company is there to display the ads on the sidebars. In such a scenario, where a high volume of people are working on some content and to handle the advertisement from the various media outlets, we need a very good auto-scaling structure. Kubernetes works well for this. At any given point in time, there is a concept for a horizontal port auto scaler based on CCP utilization. Kubernetes itself tries to increase the number of ports, which means it'll try to increase the number of instances, which are running.

Another example of how we use Kubernetes is in a banking environment. In this case, they have an on-prem version. They do not have a cloud solution at all. Occasionally, there is a high volume of transactions happening. They need flexibility. They need high availability and the very beautiful thing about the Kubernetes is that, behind the scenes, these companies are doing their own development of their own applications.

At any given point of time, if version one of the application is currently running in their data centers in form of Kubernetes, it is very easy for them to launch version two. If version one is running, and another version is running slowly, we can divert all the requests, which are coming to version one over to version two. The moment a customer accepts that particular product, we remove version one, and version two is ready. There is no downtime and no complexity. 

What is most valuable?

The deployment strategy is great. If we look into any other framework, we do not have a good deployment strategy here. The Kubernetes framework itself gives you fantastic deployment strategies with rolling updates. 

We can completely decouple solutions, which means we can scale as much as we want. Technically there are no limitations. The way you can scale up and scale down your cluster with very few commands is amazing.

With the high availability, I can put some intelligence on the top of it. We're capable of handling any type of application nowadays. While there were limitations in previous versions, we don't need to maintain the previous state of the application. The moment our application restarts, we are not required to remember what we have used before. We do not require memory. 

The product is highly scalable. 

Security-wise, there are a lot of frameworks that are available. 

The product offers security, scalability, high availability deployment, and scheduling mechanisms. These are all features that people are passionate about. 

What needs improvement?

There are a lot of complexities. They're a lot of components that are working together internally. If you look into the installation methods nowadays, it's better, however, previously, it was a very complex process. It's improving. It could still be better. Currently, we do have a very simple method in order to install Kubernetes. 

They need to focus on more security internally. The majority of the security is coming from external frameworks which means I need to deploy a third-party framework to improve the security. For example, there's Notary, OPPI, or KubeCon. Basically, there are some areas where I need to take the help of a third party. 

The solution requires networking dependence. Kubernetes does not have its own networking component. Once again, I need to work with a third party. It is fully integrated, no doubt about that, however, I need to be dependent on third-party components to make it work.  I want Kubernetes to improve security-wise and make their own stack available inside the core Kubernetes engine to make the secure implementation. If they can integrate the networking component inside the core component that would be best. With dependency removed it would give more choice to the customer. 

Currently, they're improving immutable structures and a lot of things. They're coming out with version 1.21 in order to reduce some security issues. They are removing the direct dependency from Docker. There are many areas they're working on. 

A policy enforcement engine is something people are really looking for, which could be part of the four component vertical port auto scaler. A horizontal port auto scaler is already available, however, a vertical port auto scaler should be available. 

If there was a built-in solution for login and a monitoring solution, if they can integrate some APIs or drivers where I can attach directly any monitoring tool, that would be great.  

For how long have I used the solution?

I've worked with the solution for almost six or seven years. I've worked on this particular product rigorously. Earlier, I used to work with on-premises solutions which involved deploying the Kubernetes cluster with the hardware in a cube spray, which is the latest method.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The performance completely depends on the user. Typically, it's stable. 1.20 is a quite stable product as they have improved in many areas. Currently, that is the one stable version. Technically, yes, they are making their products stable. No doubt about that. That said, stability is an ongoing process. They are trying to improve the product in different areas. 

Performance-wise, it completely depends upon how you define and how you design your cluster. For example, what are the components you are using? How have you made your particular cluster, and under what type of workload? I've worked on medium to large scale workloads, and, if you rate out of five, I'd give it a 4.5. It's got a very good performance.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

I would recommend this solution to large enterprises. That said, small enterprises still have very simple options available to them which are reliable and secure. It is very easy to manage. Still, it's more suitable for a large-scale company or maybe something that's in the mid-range, and for a small organization, I do not recommend it.

The scalability is quite impressive in this product.

How are customer service and support?

The major setback of the product is the technical support. They might provide some sort of email support, however, you cannot rely on it. 

You never know when you are going to get the response and unfortunately, when it comes to having a third-party component that you can use to build your Kubernetes cluster, those are also open source, and there is often no technical support, no email support, no chat support. Many have community-based support, which you can depend on. 

This is a major setback for the user. It's the reason customers need to hire a consultant who is rigorously working with the product. In my case, as a consultant, 24/7 I'm using the Kubernetes container and OpenShift. 

Due to the lack of support, other companies take advantage. For example, Red Hat. Red Hat says, they'll give support for Kubernetes, however, you have to use their product, which is called OpenShift. If you look into the OpenShift, OpenShift is basically Kubernetes. There's only one more abstraction layer provided by Red Hat. However, Red Hat will say, I will give you the support, and it's a product made by them, so they know the loopholes. They know the way to troubleshoot it. They know what to debug. They can provide support - if you use them. Rancher is another company that does this. It's basically a Kubernetes product, with Rancher as the abstraction layer, and they will provide support to their clients. Cloud providers also have jumped onto this particular approach. If I get something directly from the Cloud provider and the Cloud provider is taking responsibility, then I don't have to worry about troubleshooting and support at all. What I need to worry about is only my client or workers and my application, which is running on the top of a particular stack. That's it.

How was the initial setup?

Previously, the initial setup was complex however, right now It's pretty simple.

Nowadays, deployment will take ten to 15 minutes, depending upon the number of clusters you want. If I talk about the single master and a simple testing purpose, it's ten to 15 minutes. A multi-master technique will take possibly one hour or maybe less. It's pretty fast. In previous versions, it would take an entire day to deploy. There used to be a lot of dependencies. 

A lot of maintenance is required in terms of image creation. Maintenance is required as well as far as the volume is concerned as space is one of the main challenges. Network support is necessary which means continuous monitoring and log analysis are needed. 

If I set up the cluster as well as operational maintenance activity, I need proactive monitoring and proactive log analysis. I need someone who can manage the users, authorization, and authentication mechanisms. Kubernetes does not have an authorization authentication mechanism. I need to depend on a third-party utility. Sometimes a developer will ask you to create a user and give some provisional space. There are many activities, daily activities, that need to be covered.

In the world of management, Kubernetes does not have its own mechanism. That's why there has to be some administrator who can provide the volume to the Kubernetes administrator and the Kubernetes administrator can decide to whom they give the space. If an application is required, they will try to increase the space. 

What about the implementation team?

I work as a freelancing consultant. I am actually providing consulting for the company, which I work for. I help my end customers who are service providers. I work as an independent consultant for this particular product.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

Even though the solution is open-source, one major service we need to pay for is storage. Normally we are using the storage from EMC or NetApps or IBM. These companies created their own stack of provisions and if I want to use their storage for my Kubernetes clusters, these are the license stacks that I need to purchase.

Storage is the major component, as the licensing is based on that. Technically, there's an operating system license, which is something that I need to pay by default for every node, that I'm using. Other than that, with any other framework now, OPPA is completely free. Calico is completely free. A lot of frameworks are available. A framework is going to make sure that our entire Kubernetes cluster is based on compliance and is compliance-specific. Whichever customer I'm handling, I always look for ways to save them money because at end of the day, as they're investing in a lot of operational costs. I try to seek out mostly open-source products which are stable and reliable. Still, even if I do that, storage is an area where people need to pay the money.

What other advice do I have?

The company I am working for is just a customer and end-user. 

1.20 is a quite stable version at this moment, however, Kubernetes does have another more recent version of 1.24.

For us, 40% of customers are working on the cloud and 60% of customers that have compliance policies are deployed in their own cluster and are not using a managed service from the cloud.

There are a lot of caches available. Using the cloud-based instances as one of the nodes in the Kubernetes cluster is acceptable. The question would be how many people are using manage services by any cloud provider for Kubernetes, and that is 30% or 40% of customers. They said they don't want to manage their cluster on their own. They don't want to have the headache of managing the cluster. They are focused on their business application and their business. This is what they want. That's why they are going for managed services. They don't have to do anything at all. Everything can be controlled by the cloud provider.

On the other hand, 60% of people are looking for something that offers full control. That way, at any given point of time, if they want to upgrade Kubernetes, they can. For example, there is an open policy agent, which is a policy enforcement utility or framework, which is available on the top of Kubernetes. By default, if I want to use policy enforcement on the top of the cloud, I do have multiple choices on the top of the cloud. There are some restrictions, however. With on-premises, people want everything to be their hand so they can implement anything. 

One of the major things I would recommend to users is that whenever they are doing capacity planning if they are looking at deploying the Kubernetes on top of their on-prem solution, it will likely require the purchase of hardware. In those cases, I recommend they make sure they understand what type of workload they are putting on the top of their cluster, and calculate that properly. They need to understand how much consumption is in order to understand their hardware requirements in order to get the right sizing on the one-time purchase. They need to know the number of microservices they are using and the level of power consumption in terms of CPU and memory. They will also want to calculate how much it'll scale.

Kubernetes will provide all the scalability a company needs. You can add the node and remove the node quickly. However, if you miscalculate the hardware capacity itself the infrastructure may not be able to handle it. That's why it is imperative to make sure that capacity planning is part of the process. I'd also advise companies to do a POC first before going into real production.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

On-premises
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Flag as inappropriate
Michal Smolik
DevOps Consultant at DevOpsGroup
Consultant
Top 20
Offers perfect auto-repair and automation features

Pros and Cons

  • "The auto-repair function in Kubernetes is perfect. When something breaks, the auto-repair function automatically repairs it. If you are running the content in Kubernetes, you have a good set up. You do not need to do anything for the management of this. So, the automation of Kubernetes is number one."
  • "The Kubernetes dashboard can be improved. It is currently a mess. We were using Rancher earlier, and everyone was happy with the dashboard. Right now, we are using Kubernetes, and it's not working with Microsoft workstations. We still have problems with the dashboard. It's terrible."

What is our primary use case?

It's a mobile phone application with a website written in Angular 8. It's a strategic microservices solution. There are a lot of containers and resources. The application is written in Java, and we are using Spring Boot, the second version. We are also using the application-gateway of Azure.

If you want to do the microservices strategy, you need to split the services to the smaller work. There must be containers in Docker. There are not that many good solutions for Docker. So right now, if you need to use Docker, you choose Kubernetes because they are number one for the container orchestration solution.

What is most valuable?

The auto-repair function in Kubernetes is perfect. When something breaks, the auto-repair function automatically repairs it. If you are running the content in Kubernetes, you have a good setup. You do not need to do anything for the management of this. So, the automation of Kubernetes is number one.

What needs improvement?

The Kubernetes dashboard can be improved. It is currently a mess. We were using Rancher earlier, and everyone was happy with the dashboard. Right now, we are using Kubernetes, and it's not working with Microsoft workstations. Aks is using mcr.microsoft.com/oss/kubernetes/dashboard:v2.0.0-rc7 for dashboard. It has problems with auth. It constantly deletes tokens in kube/config file. And auth with kube/config file is not working on mac. It does not work on chrome in windows 10. It is still laggy and slow. Auto refresh function is not working correctly and you need to refresh your browser. Older versions have similar problems. There is no restart function such as in rancher. There is no possible to restart or scale more deployments at the same time. You need to write script for that. Graphics design is out of date. After a while of not clicking anywhere it give you 401 and you need to login again.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using this solution for two to three years. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

The stability is totally perfect because if something breaks, it gets auto-repaired. We had only one failure, but it was not the failure of Kubernetes, it was the failure of Azure machine.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

The scalability is great. You have scale sets, and every scale set has node tools. You have different types of refurbishing, and you have a node count. If I need more CPU or more information, I just change the node count, and everything is run in the cloud. It will automatically pull the new node to Kubernetes in the product label, and the load will run there. 

I also used the downscale and upscale features. You can also automate the scaling, but I didn't try that. I would love to use that. I am using manual scaling. If I need a new installation, it takes two to ten minutes in a cluster. This can also be done by the junior admins in one click.

How are customer service and technical support?

Support is the only problem we face with this solution. I don't know which plan we have, but our software is stable. We are also a customer of a reseller, and we need to open tickets with the reseller. After that, we open a ticket in Microsoft Azure, but it takes two or three weeks to get an answer from the technical guy from Microsoft, which is terrible. It could be because we have the basic support.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We were using Rancher 1.6 before, but it reached the end of life. Right now, the version is Rancher 2. In my opinion, I don't need to put another layer of Rancher 2 when I already have a good solution from Azure. So, I chose the Azure solution.

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is more complex because you don't only set up Kubernetes. You also need to set up some CI/CD solution, and you need a setup to back up your workload to the Kubernetes. If you want to deploy the workload to Kubernetes and you want to do it efficiently, you need to have Helm. Helm is for catalog package for Kubernetes. So, you need to know how to work with Helm. 

You need to create docket files or some DevOps scripts for deploying ability. The solution is complex. You definitely need to have an experienced DevOps person. If you have juniors in your company, they will not know how to set up the solution, which is not good. You need to have experience in tech DevOps.

For small setups, it doesn't matter. You run Kubernetes, put some containers, and you play with it. That's okay. However, if you want to run it in production with everything, it needs experienced DevOps staff. We have a team of up to 10 developers and DevOps members.

What about the implementation team?

Yes, I am a certified administrator. Deployment was very easy. I deployed the Kubernetes service alone to run some workload in Asia. There is an automation feature in this solution. You only open one page and fill some requirements, and everything goes out to the team. It was great. 

I had everything scripted in the platform with code in 50 minutes, but this is only for Kubernetes, the infrastructure, and the network stuff. I had scripted everything again, but it was in the Ops script; not in the platform. I could deploy the complete workload within one hour.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The management layer is free, which is perfect. You don't need to pay money for the management layer, but in AWS develop service, you need to pay. I think it is €75 per month for the management layer. It is free here, so you can have as many Kubernetes clusters as you need. You are paying just for the workload, that is, for the machine, CPU, memory, and everything. 

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

I am still using the basic Docker Compose, which needs low care. I tried Rancher 2, but I don't have it in production. I also used Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS), and I also tried the Google Cloud Platform. 

I think Google Cloud Platform is the best one, but here in Slovakia, we don't have enough support for Google Cloud, which will become a problem. If I can choose from the integration, I think the Google integration is the best because we could get into the Google products, but here in Europe, we don't have the support for Google Cloud Platform. 

What other advice do I have?

Kubernetes is a great product. I am currently also helping a customer with the implementation of AKS because they only have a private cloud, and they want to have a hybrid cloud. I highly recommend to use this feature, and not to install Kubernetes manually or use some third-party tools. The Azure community service is better implemented than AWS community service. 

They are not good at planning the upgrades for Kubernetes. So, you really need to constantly upgrade the cost. The upgrade is automatic, but Azure changed the integration of load balancing, and I was forced to re-deploy all costs, which costed my company. We need two clusters at the same time from every environment. So, this was not good. I contacted the support, but there was no way to change the integration of the load balancer. I hope this will never happen again in the future.

I would rate Kubernetes an eight out of ten. The dashboard and support could be better. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Private Cloud
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Learn what your peers think about Kubernetes. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: November 2021.
554,676 professionals have used our research since 2012.
AT
Senior Software Developer at a financial services firm with 51-200 employees
Real User
Top 20
Easy to use, extremely stable and easily scalable

Pros and Cons

  • "The ease of use if the solution is a very valuable aspect for us."
  • "It would be very interesting if they could introduce a template engine to set dynamic values in the deployment time. It would be ideal if it could be native in Kubernetes as it would be much easier."

What is our primary use case?

We primarily use the solution for deploying containers and scheduling the jobs to the Kubernetes for our server-side deployment.

How has it helped my organization?

Before we switched to Kubernetes, we had been using a solution that required a manual interaction with the server. Every time you need to scale it up and down, it was a lot of hassle. With this solution, we were able to add continuous integration with Kubernetes. We can trigger the automatic deployment and it will just be deployed and nobody needs to go and do anything. In terms of scaling, we can define the scalability rules, which will grow as the traffic grows, as opposed to past instances where you needed to change the instances of the CPO, etc.

Since we are saving so much time, we're also saving our company money. We're saving a few hours of work a week at this point.

What is most valuable?

The ease of use in the solution is a very valuable aspect for us.

The scalability of the product is excellent. Scalability is particularly important to us due to the fact that we have available traffic that requires our service to scale up and down according to the load on the service.

What needs improvement?

It would be very interesting if they could introduce a template engine to set dynamic values in the deployment time. It would be ideal if it could be native in Kubernetes as it would be much easier.

For how long have I used the solution?

I've been using the solution for three to four years.

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

In this particular deployment, we've had the solution running for a little bit less than a year, and we have had zero stability issues. It's extremely stable. There are no bugs and glitches. It works without fail and is very reliable.

We had one instance once where it disappeared once for an instant, and nobody even noticed anything was wrong. That said, I do not think that was a fault of Kubernetes. It was more about an AWS issue.

What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

From the perspective of managing Kubernetes and deploying and updating, we have two developers (one team leader and a DevOps). We taught four people to actively use and manage it. Then, almost everyone is using some service that is running on Kubernetes (about 15 or so people), therefore, it's widely used at our organization.  

We do have plans to increase usage in the future. We're planning to scale as we go where we will add more services and more deployments into Kubernetes.

How are customer service and technical support?

We don't directly reach out to technical support. Rather, we tend to use their available documentation for troubleshooting.

How was the initial setup?

We are using it on AWS, and it was fairly easy to deploy. As far as I know on other platforms, it is also quite easy as they have a faster-managed service. However, if I deploy it manually myself and manage the nodes by myself, it's pretty complex. Therefore, it can get pretty complex. Using the AWS managed solution removes the complexity for us.

The deployment took us about two days with testing, et cetera.

At the first stage, we had to wrap everything on our server-side, with the applications in the Docker containers. Then we deployed the ETS to the cloud and then we deployed the containers into the ETS. After that, we switched the browser to point to the newly deployed containers and load balance cells instead of the old machines. After that, we switched off the old machine.

What about the implementation team?

We handled the deployment ourselves. We didn't need the assistance of any consultants or integrators.

What was our ROI?

Technically, we pay either way. We had the machine that we paid and we switched it off. We didn't really save on money investment so much as stability investment. We invested in this environment in order to attain a more stable and predictable application. That was our ROI.

What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

The solution can be more expensive for smaller companies. If you run it on a smaller scale it's pricey. However, if you scale up or use it on a larger scale, it's pretty competitive in the pricing.

For example, on Amazon, the billing is mostly for the machines that you're using. If you have a lot of containers, hundreds of containers, running on the ECS, it can even be more expensive than if you were running the same containers on some deployment as you're paying for the nodes that are running the machines. If you can use fewer containers in the same machine it can be cheaper. It really depends on deployment. 

If you decide to take the managed service, be aware that it's $100-$200 extra monthly. It's not much, and it's worth the cost.

Which other solutions did I evaluate?

We did evaluate Amazon's Elastic Container cluster before ultimately choosing this product.

Kubernetes is multi-platform. You can run it on any cloud and you can also run it on your local machine. The implementation is also much more straightforward with Kubernetes and deployment is easier. Even though the product is from Amazon themselves, Kubernetes is easier to maintain and deploy.

What other advice do I have?

I would advise new users to take the managed solution. Don't deploy it by yourself. Just take a managed service. It's really worth it. I advise this due to the fact that it's a lot of time and effort. It's not that expensive in terms of overhead. It may be $100 or $200 or something like that monthly. When you pay $3,000, let's say, the $100 doesn't really matter. However, the work that your DevOps will have will be costly. They will initially invest to maintain your unmanaged deployment. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this solution a ten.

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Public Cloud
Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
SA
Multi-Cloud Consulting at a construction company with 5,001-10,000 employees
MSP
Top 5
You can deploy a container pretty quickly compared to a virtual machine

Pros and Cons

    • "One feature I would actually like to see is the network monitoring part. When we talk about communities, it's mostly the computer side. But it does have some enhancements on the networking side which they have recently released. I would like to see more enhancement where we can monitor the networks of the Kubernetes cluster or the Kubernetes workloads."

    What is our primary use case?

    We are not using the Google version, but the open source Kubernetes.

    This product can be deployed both on cloud or on-premises.

    Our use case is mostly for multi-services or the applications which you will try to modernize. Investors will come from monolithic applications to mostly cloud-native applications. When I say cloud-native applications, that means each service component will be part of one container. You need a container orchestration or a management platform. So Kubernetes is actually a management or an orchestration platform for containers. Basically, it works with microservice applications.

    What is most valuable?

    One of Kubernetes' top features is its agility, it is very fast. You can deploy a container pretty quickly compared to a virtual machine. That is one strong feature. A second feature is its flexibility because you can use it on any platform. You can use it on Google or AWS or Microsoft or IBM or any clouds. So flexibility of deployment and agility are the top features. It also helps in your maintenance cycles when you do maintenance on your environment.

    What needs improvement?

    For improvements, I would say it's actually still evolving so they are already making a lot of improvements along the way. Each and every release comes with new features so I think they're doing well.

    One feature I would actually like to see is the network monitoring part. When we talk about communities, it's mostly the computer side. But it does have some enhancements on the networking side which they have recently released. I would like to see more enhancement where we can monitor the networks of the Kubernetes cluster or the Kubernetes workloads.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    This Kubernetes product is new so I would say I have been using it around two years.

    I am using version 1.18, not the latest one.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    Stability is still a question because it depends upon which flavor you're installing. It could be on-prem or it could be cloud, it could be open source. It's still debatable.

    That said, stability-wise I haven't seen any problem myself up to now, but I might not be right. There are many other people who are deploying this in a production environment. I haven't done it myself in production so I would not be the correct person to answer that. But for me, I haven't found any stability issues.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Kubernetes definitely has good scalability. 

    The number of users on it can vary. It can be used by very small organizations to very large and complex organizations. There is a customer I was working with who has more than 80,000 employees around the globe. But not everyone is a user of this technology. If you're asking about the users of this technology, I would say around 1,000 - 5,000.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Their technical support depends upon which flavor you're installing. Mostly, if you're going to the cloud version, support is definitely provided by the vendors. Like Microsoft provides its own support, AWS provides their own, and even IBM does the same. But if you're deploying on your own prem, that's where the question is. It depends. It's not a product sold by a single company, it's an open source, so big companies like J.P Morgan or Citibank have it deployed on their own premises and support will be their internal teams who will be working on that.

    How was the initial setup?

    Installation is not a straightforward thing. It's a process that you have to follow step by step. On-prem is a little tedious because you have to spend some time to get this installed and create a platform. But people are mostly inclined towards cloud. They use Kubernetes on the cloud.

    I did install it myself in my lab and the install itself doesn't take much time, about a couple of hours. But to go through the documentation takes time. You have to understand each and every component and then try to install that. So it's a combination of both understanding the documentation and then installing. Because it's a new technology, it does take a little bit of time.

    What about the implementation team?

    It depends. If you talk to a customer and you get a project with them that they want to deploy, you're going to need a project manager or a technical architect, and then you'll need at least one or two guys who can do the hands on deployment. It's not a fairly large team, but you will need a project manager, a technical architect and an engineer.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    There are different types of licenses. You have a subscription-based license if you are talking about cloud. This has both yearly or monthly available. Or you can go on number of workloads, based on how much workload you're putting on the cloud.

    What other advice do I have?

    I would definitely recommend Kubernetes for others who want to start using it.

    I would say it is no longer in its inception phase, but it is still in the early phase. The product hasn't matured enough. There are customers who are looking to take this maybe around two years down the line. On a scale of one to ten, I would give Kubernetes an eight.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Hybrid Cloud
    Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Partner
    JG
    Architect Watermanagement at a government with 5,001-10,000 employees
    Real User
    Top 20
    Easy container management, affordable, and majority of installations straightforward

    Pros and Cons

    • "The easy management of containers is one of the main features I have found useful."
    • "This solution is not very easy to use."

    What is our primary use case?

    We use the solution to modernize our IT landscape. We use infrastructure and platform surfaces for our data center. More recently we have added a container as a surface, which is this solution.

    What is most valuable?

    The easy deployment of containers is one of the main features I have found useful. In large scale developments, it is less hassle working with containers than virtual machines. It is easier to manage these containers instead of virtual machines, although there is a steep learning curve to graps the benefits of it.

    What needs improvement?

    This solution is not very easy to use. We are looking also for some tools surrounding this solution to manage the environment and to secure it better. These two are areas that have caused some issues. We want to integrate it with what you call continuous integration and delivery. 

    It must be scalable, cost-effective, more agile when it comes to developing and managing the environment for DevOps. All these things go together, it must be cured to allow better manageability. That is what we all are doing in most large companies.

    In a future release, the solution could become more like a core engine, in which tools like OpenShift are centered. You could see how all kinds of tools could help to better improve the management, security, or scalability of the product. Additionally, we will need more than the core in our organization, there needs to be more additional management tools moving forward.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I have been using the solution for approximately one year.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    When it comes to my own environment, I have had no issues with scalability but it is not easy. This is just the development environment. Regarding my company, within my department, we are running a sandbox environment just for testing and that is going well. I am not sure how things will go if you go fully into production with this solution.

    We will look for additional products to deal with the difficulties with scalability. There are several vendors that offer these products. Although this solution was made for scalability, it does not come out of the box this way.

    We currently have approximately 30 users using the solution in my organization.

    How was the initial setup?

    I am not aware exactly how the on-premises installation went for the IT team at my organization. For my local environment where I am testing this solution myself, the installation has been very easy. This is mostly because it is a local environment. We also have a cloud environment, where we have a hybrid data center and this cloud environment installation was fairly easy too.

    What about the implementation team?

    The deployment was done by an internal team in my organization. 

    Maintenance is required for all software versions. We need to manage different areas of the solution such as the cloud-native landscape tooling, registry, DevOps environment, and security toolings. There are three areas that need upgrades, versioning, scalability, and the toolset surrounding the solution. You can not run it on its own, you need additional tools. All of this maintenance is taken care of by our administration IT department.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    The solution is affordable.

    What other advice do I have?

    We plan on using the solution in the future. We are a large data center and we just need to have several options available. We need to have a traditional deployment of Infrastructure as a service, with virtual machines. We need also a platform as a service for very rapid and smaller applications and container management, container as a service which is this solution for all others. We expect that the virtual machines in the next 10 years will decrease and container-based services will increase.

    I recommend the solution to others. It is a very good product and the strength can be that other vendors can create their security and management toolings around it allowing it to become a type of core engine. If those other vendors were not there, I think I would be more critical. Within my department, we were a bit late adopting the solution than other parts of the organization. We are still growing and experimenting, we have some clusters already in production. A lot of the product tools are open source which in some cases means the support is also not readily available. You have to adapt to it, but also be cautious when it comes to the support and the steep learning curve issues that you can expect.

    I rate Kubernetes an eight out of ten.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    On-premises
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    Flag as inappropriate
    Dmytro Kutetskyi
    Solution Architect | Head of BizDev at Greg Solutions
    Real User
    Top 5Leaderboard
    Cost-effective and it has great integration has helped unify our technology stack

    Pros and Cons

    • "This product has a rich toolset from the community including CNI plug-ins, Helm packages, operators, dashboards, various integrations, etc."
    • "This product should have a more advanced built-in scheduler that uses real application metrics in the scheduling strategy."

    What is our primary use case?

    The following is a list of the cases when I prefer Kubernetes for application hosting:

    1. Micro-services infrastructure + possible use of some service meshes, like Istio or Linkerd.
    2. Cost efficiency; we are using Kubernetes in conjunction with AWS Spot Instances or Google Cloud preemptible VMs.
    3. Standards-compliant infrastructures like HIPAA, PCI SOC, DSS, and ISOxxxx.
    4. Highly-available or fault-tolerant infrastructures, due to some sort of self-recovery and self-healing.
    5. Infrastructures with automatically scalable applications.

    How has it helped my organization?

    It's unified our technology stack across on-premises infrastructures and public clouds, including Amazon Web Services, Azure, and Google Cloud Platform. Kubernetes provides great integrations with other open-source tools, like Prometheus, Grafana, Elastic Stack, Fluentd, OAuth providers, and others.

    Kubernetes distributions are also great because we adopt the platforms for different requirements. These include the AWS Elastic Kubernetes Service, Google Kubernetes Engine, Azure Kubernetes Engine, Rancher, etc.

    It allows us to build custom-tailored infrastructures from small to big companies and satisfy various requirements, such as providing a proper level of RPO, RTO, scalability, cost-efficiency, and support high availability/fault tolerance.

    What is most valuable?

    The most valuable features of Kubernetes are:

    1. Containers self-healing and self-recovery.
    2. Unifications allow for internal Kubernetes components to be migrated between Kubernetes providers in an easier manner.
    3. Kubernetes as a service from the major cloud providers including AWS, Google Cloud, Azure, Digital Ocean, IBM, etc. Kubernetes as a service helps in infrastructure migration from on-premises to cloud, or from cloud to cloud.
    4. This product has a rich toolset from the community including CNI plug-ins, Helm packages, operators, dashboards, various integrations, etc.
    5. Built-in scaling features, it's really great!

    What needs improvement?

    Some improvements that we would like to see are:

    1. Have reacher built-in features and probably incorporate some features from the community toolset, like KEDA for pod scaling.
    2. Even more tools from the community for monitoring, log collectors, authorization, and authentication.
    3. Have some sort of simplifications for wider adoption.
    4. This product should have a more advanced built-in scheduler that uses real application metrics in the scheduling strategy.
    5. Wider integration with cloud providers in terms of volumes and key management services.
    6. Add support of traffic encryption option from container to container, and Ingress to container.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    We have been using Kubernetes as a self-hosted service, managed by external solutions, like Rancher, or a cloud-provider managed service (Azure AKS, Google GKE, Amazon EKS) for between three and four years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    This product is pretty stable, especially in the managed service option, but as with all platforms, it has some issues. As an example, during an update Kubernetes version on Amazon EKS from 1.17 to 1.18 Amazon duplicates workers count from 4 to 12 (should be from 4 to 8), upgrades takes more than 1 hour (should be about 10-20 minutes) and suddenly this leads to the short-time interruption of some applications during re-scheduling. In the end, we were forced to write our own rolling update scripts for updating the Kubernetes version on the nodes instances, which completes the upgrade in 10 minutes without application downtime. But again, this is an issue related to managed Kubernetes (in particular, Amazon EKS platform).

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    Great scalability, especially for the small and mid-size setup with fewer than 100 nodes.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We have used various platforms for managing Docker containers, such as Rancher, Azure App Service, and Portainer.

    How was the initial setup?

    The first adoption was hard because the Kubernete's learning curve is pretty high.

    What about the implementation team?

    The in-house team only.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    It's open-source and free, so pricing should not be applied here.

    Google Kubernetes Engine is free in the simplest setup, AWS Kubernetes Engine costs about $50 (depending on the region), in a three master setup, so it's almost the same as the cost of the EC2 instances and it's totally fine from my point of view.

    Which other solutions did I evaluate?

    We prefer Kubernetes due to the unification and the next level of the platform itself.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Hybrid Cloud

    If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

    Amazon Web Services (AWS)
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    MarcChauvin
    CEO at tamac GmbH
    Real User
    Top 20
    Great scalability, very stable, and a mature product

    Pros and Cons

    • "The most valuable aspect of the solution is the scalability."
    • "The solution can be quite complex for many users."

    What is our primary use case?

    We primarily use the solution for orchestration.

    Most of the clients we work with are enjoying the DevOps aspects of Kubernetes. They want to be able to safely and quickly deploy new applications. Others just enjoy the modern way they can deploy containers without being a DevOp company. 

    What is most valuable?

    The most valuable aspect of the solution is the scalability.

    Kubernetes is quite complex. That's the reason there are some companies that are developing tools simplifying the life of the administrator. There are Kubernetes distributions, like Rancher. Rancher is one of my favorites. There are others too, like OpenShift, for example.

    What needs improvement?

    I would love to see a feature like VMware's vMotion, meaning a workload can be transferred from one host to another without being restarted. While true cloud native applications typically don't need such a feature, there is still a lot of single-container legacy applications out in the field. These applications get unavailable while being rescheduled to another node, for example when doing node maintenance.

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I'd been dealing with the solution for the past three or four years.

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    The solution if very, very stable. It's a very mature product. While there is no software without bugs, it has 20 or more years of development behind it that makes it very robust.

    What do I think about the scalability of the solution?

    The solution is extremely scalable. It's one of its greatest selling points. It also works for businesses of any size, from small to large.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    Technical support is something I handle myself. I don't need to reach out to the Kubernetes team in order to troubleshoot issues.

    We do have manufacturers of specific products that also have their own support we can access if we need to.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    I have some experience with Docker. I also have a lot of VMware virtualization experience, although that doesn't have much to do with containers, per se.

    That said, almost every software provider tries to adapt their solution to Kubernetes due to the fact that Kubernetes is gaining a lot of attention from everywhere. It's going to be the preferred way to deploy applications.

    How was the initial setup?

    The complexity of the solution depends on the size of the installation and the product you choose. If you choose Kubernetes without any other tools, like Rancher or OpenShift, it's going to be very difficult and complex. However, if you have the chance to use one of those, it's much easier.

    Once the solution is up and running, it requires monitoring, software updates, replacement when something fails, etc. Most of the time it's the provider that manages the infrastructure.

    What's my experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing?

    The solution is open-source. There are no licensing fees to speak of. It's under an Apache license, so anybody can use it. Some products that go on top of it, however, are licensed. 

    What other advice do I have?

    I am a consultant, and I am just providing information about how to use this kind of software within specific companies.

    Kubernetes is evolving now. 1.18 is the latest version, however, we don't have the newest version everywhere. That's the one we choose for new installs when we do them.

    When it's deployed on the cloud, some of my customers are using public clouds such as Amazon, Google, or Microsoft. There are also some customers that use private clouds here in Switzerland. I work together with them.

    If people are using modern technologies like containers or developing software by themselves, I would recommend this solution.

    I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Hybrid Cloud
    Disclosure: My company has a business relationship with this vendor other than being a customer: Consultant
    Aravind Madhava
    Lead Solutions Architect at DXC
    Real User
    Top 5
    A good and simple user interface; lacking direct technical support from the company

    Pros and Cons

    • "A good interface, better than comparable solutions."
    • "Some Kubernetes technical support would be helpful."

    What is our primary use case?

    We are platinum partners with Oracle and we are preferred partners with Microsoft. I work for an organization which is on both sides of the coin. We are a service integrator organization. We don't have a specific loyalty, we blend in and provide the services. I'm a solutions architect.

    What is most valuable?

    I like the interface of this solution. When you're using it in real time, it seems to be a little easier to use versus the other options. 

    What needs improvement?

    If you're using the solution on the desktop, you eventually have to download the Azure package and install it before you can actually use the Azure commands in Kubernetes. There are more community packages that have been released, rather than releases by Kubernetes. I understand that it's an open server and people can contribute to it, that's how it works. However, sometimes people get misguided and that's where we need some support. It would make a difference. 

    For how long have I used the solution?

    I've been using this solution for almost three months. 

    What do I think about the stability of the solution?

    It's a pretty stable solution. We have about 40 plus people who use it.

    How are customer service and technical support?

    I would turn to community support as a first step. The blogs, which cover it, have given me a little bit more insight in terms of how and what and all of that. But when it comes to community, I've not asked much, but I've learned from it. I've watched some videos and see there is some online free training. I haven't been in a situation where I needed external support from Kubernetes.

    Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

    We used to use Dockers. We explored Kubernetes because we want to do market platform, which is basically a show or an article together and we wanted to use a single platform for both Oracle and Azure. Not that Dockers didn't do it, but we did kind of wonder what would be the better option. 

    How was the initial setup?

    The initial setup was relatively easy. I mean I've obviously used some of the apps before, but this seemed to be a little easier for me. I think when I used it in the Azure implementation earlier this year, it didn't give me too much heartburn although it takes a little bit more than you expect. I can just start the QP CDL and push out the command and start it. If I'm using it with Dynatrace, it's the same thing, but when it came to deploying the package into the local machine and then running it, and then trying to get the right connection within Azure it was more difficult. 

    What other advice do I have?

    I would recommend going through the training to see what the limitations are within Kubernetes. There's not a lot of training, but what training is available should be used so people can understand the difference between Docker and Kubernetes. If somebody has used Docker previously, they can see the difference even though the methods are the same. It's the same madness, but it will help you to better position things like command line interfaces.

    We had a bit of a struggle when I was trying to implement it in Azure. But if you look at the Oracle implementation, it worked really well so I would rate this solution a seven out of 10. 

    Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

    Public Cloud

    If public cloud, private cloud, or hybrid cloud, which cloud provider do you use?

    Microsoft Azure
    Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
    Product Categories
    Container Management
    Buyer's Guide
    Download our free Kubernetes Report and get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions.