BMC AMI DevX vs. Kubernetes

It's pretty good at creating an extract of a whole table, but not the best at grabbing all related tables in my experience. Pretty intuitive on setting up your test data categories. I also really like that it can either run via ISPF or via Topaz which was included with our purchase.

Incentivized

K8s should be avoided - If your application works well without being converted into microservices-based architecture & fits correctly in a VM, needs less scaling, have a fixed traffic pattern then it is better to keep away from Kubernetes. Otherwise, the operational challenges & technical expertise will add a lot to the OPEX. Also, if you're the one who thinks that containers consume fewer resources as compared to VMs then this is not true. As soon as you convert your application to a microservice-based architecture, a lot of components will add up, shooting your resource consumption even higher than VMs so, please beware. Kubernetes is a good choice - When the application needs quick scaling, is already in microservice-based architecture, has no fixed traffic pattern, most of the employees already have desired skills.

Incentivized

• Extract/load data from one DB or table to another masking the data for testing.
• Compare extracts against each other to ensure good baselines.

Incentivized

• Complex cluster management can be done with simple commands with strong authentication and authorization schemes
• Exhaustive documentation and open community smoothens the learning process
• As a user a few concepts like pod, deployment and service are sufficient to go a long way

Incentivized

• I find it more obtuse to use than IBM Optim.
• Related tables are difficult to incorporate.

Incentivized

• Local development, Kubernetes does tend to be a bit complicated and unnecessary in environments where all development is done locally.
• The need for add-ons, Helm is almost required when running Kubernetes. This brings a whole new tool to manage and learn before a developer can really start to use Kubernetes effectively.
• Finicy configmap schemes. Kubernetes configmaps often have environment breaking hangups. The fail safes surrounding configmaps are sadly lacking.

Incentivized

Support has been amazing compared to Optim. Further, new features are very regular with File-AID - I can't remember the last time Optim had a significant update. File-AID support is very receptive to feature requests and reported bugs, including sending out hotfixes quickly.

Incentivized

Optim is more user friendly in how it operates, in my opinion. It's less obtuse to figure out how to extract and mask the data required compared to File-AID. Further, Optim is easier to gather related tables, by far. I do prefer using File-AID via the Topaz GUI much more than using Optim via its GUI. Finally, I personally believe that File-AID is significantly faster to run than Optim - this could be a configuration issue.

Incentivized

Most of the required features for any orchestration tool or framework, which is provided by Kubernetes. After understanding all modules and features of the K8S, it is the best fit for us as compared with others out there.

Incentivized

• Saves time creating production like data for testing.
• Keeps that data safe from developers and need-to-know only.

Incentivized

• Because of microservices, Kubernetes makes it easy to find the cost of each application easily.
• Like every new technology, initially, it took more resources to educate ourselves but over a period of time, I believe it's going to be worth it.

Incentivized