CoreOS rkt / Container Linux (project ended) vs. Google Kubernetes Engine

CoreOS rkt is well suited for any development environment where operating systems and hardware are not homogeneous. CoreOS rkt allows us to write code on one machine with the confidence that it will work on any other. This has been immensely helpful as our developers are often switching to the latest and greatest machines and operating systems. CoreOS rkt is less suited for environments that are not Software as a Service. There is often no need to bring the entire developer environment and associated dependencies when delivering a one time product. In these environments CoreOS rkt just adds unneeded overhead.

Incentivized

If your application is complex, if it's planet-scale, or if you need autoscaling, then Kubernetes is best suited. If your application is straightforward, you can opt for App Engine or Cloud Run. In many cases, you can prefer to run the cloud on GKE. But once you deploy on Kubernetes, you get the flexibility to try different things. But if you don't seek flexibility, it's not an option for you.

Incentivized

• Running a secure container without messing up with low-level details
• Very clear and straightforward approach to building a container
• A way to go for new projects thinking of containers
• Comprehensive and well-written documentation compatible with UNIX keep it simple way of thinking

Incentivized

• Engine upgrade rollout strategy - well documented and configurable
• Integration with other Google Cloud services like the Compute Engine, SaaS databases, and some cloud networking like Cloud Armor
• Graphical interface for a lot of operations - either for a quick peek/overview or actual work done by administrators and/or developers (via the Google Cloud Console, for example)

Incentivized

• Market share, it's often very difficult to find new talent who use CoreOS rkt.
• Lack of wow features, CoreOS rkt doesn't necessarily offer any immediate advantages over other container solutions.

Incentivized

• Support of IPv6.
• Better GitOps.
• A "serverless" Kubernetes so we can install Google config connector will be really awesome.
• Container-native load balancers do not support internal TCP/UDP load balancers or network load balancers.

Incentivized

• Google Kubernetes Engine has a good UI and documentation that facilitates setup and helps get projects moving along quickly
• Its built-in logging integrations with StackDriver make it easier to monitor the application and log issues quickly
• Automated orchestration, deployment, and scaling of nodes and networking are all easily configurable with yaml files

Incentivized

Very good Kubernetes distribution with a reasonable total price. Integration with storage and load balancer for ingress and services speed up every process deployment.

Incentivized

Docker, lxc, Ubuntu Snappy, partisan chroot+unshare Reformulating the problem and realizing a container is not necessary when a testing environment with clearly defined behavior.

Incentivized

GKE spins up new nodes a LOT faster than AKS. GKE's auto scaler runs a lot smoother than AKS. GKE has a lot more Kubernetes features baked in natively.

Incentivized

• When issues came up, we reached out to some folks at GCP and they seemed to be very prompt and attentive to our needs. They were always willing to help and provide additional details or recommendations or links to resources. This kind of support is very helpful as it allows us to navigate GKE with more confidence.

Incentivized

• Developers spend less time configuring and more time coding.
• Less time training developers as CoreOS rkt lets them use whatever hardware and operating system they want.
• Reduced our IT costs, solutions are containerized using CoreOS rkt meaning they can write one solution with many developers in mind.

Incentivized

• Reduced cloud computing costs.
• Easier management of applications.
• Extra time investment to learn how to setup applications in Google versus Amazon.

Incentivized