GoDaddy Container-as-a-Service (ElasticHosts, Springs.io), discontinued vs. SUSE Rancher

Unlike other providers, Springs doesn’t use a pre-built container solution, instead opting for their own software built from the ground up.

Incentivized

SUSE Rancher as a management tool becomes useful on a larger scale. Small deployments not so much. If someone also requires Kubernetes capacity or storage, Rancher is an excellent choice. Also, without Kubernetes' skills, it is unlikely that Rancher deployment is going to be a success. Then again if someone else is managing your Kubernetes capacity, setting up the software's capacity will yield greater control. Rancher is not a very integrated solution similar to others in the market.

Incentivized

• Container hosting, cloud virtualization
• Elastic capacity scaling and pay-per-use billing
• Linux kernel containerization technologies for container isolation and control

Incentivized

• Managing a Kubernetes cluster in a simple way.
• Interoperability with different cloud providers.
• Save time and resources by further simplifying Kubernetes deployments.
• Intuitive user interface for the end user.

• Provide more options at lower costs
• It would be nice to see that expanded out to more distributions. What would be potentially even better though is templates. Some hosts can deploy ready-to-run WordPress/Drupal sites, LAMP instances, ownCloud instances, etc. at the drop of a hat. If Springs could replicate this with their container hosting they’d immediately appeal to a much, much wider audience;

Incentivized

• No possibility to snapshot Projects. You can snapshot and restore the whole Kubernetes cluster, but not a Project or Namespace. For this, you have to use external tools.
• You cannot detach the Rancher-created Kubernetes clusters from Rancher management.

The software is straightforward to use and easy enough to get started with. Then complex use cases require a lot of attention not because of SUSE Rancher but because of Kubernetes and cloud native in general.

Incentivized

The documentation is quite complete and there is a very active community that is willing to collaborate and answer questions for those who are just starting out.

Springs is drastically cheaper than running 4 OVH servers, and a little cheaper than running nano instances on AWS.

Incentivized

As we use only AWS EKS Clusters originally we were using the AWS Console and CLI but that is too limited in scope. Also, we were using AWS IAM roles to provide access to users but that was lots of extra work to have them integrated into SSO while on Rancher we have just connected our GitHub login with the Alfresco organization and that uses, in turn, Okta for SSO so provisioning for access is automatic for any developer who has been assigned to GitHub.

Incentivized

The investment for small environments is quite significant. There has to be a compelling case to enhance the areas where SUSE Rancher brings in value to make such a financial leap. There is also a free version to test the value propositions, which will help support the user's buying decisions. More clusters, more volume, more tasks and more complexity in the environment equals more value that Rancher can provide.

Incentivized

• In the beginning I wasn’t sure what I should set it to for my web server, so I left it. After a while the Average usage area begins showing how much resource the container is demanding and from that more adequate limits can be set.
• Springs is drastically cheaper than running 4 OVH servers, and a little cheaper than running nano instances on AWS.

Incentivized

• We can deploy faster.
• We don't need to create separate virtual servers for each small project.
• We patch server OSes without worrying that patches will break deployments.