Likelihood to Recommend 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.
Read full review 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.
Read full review Pros 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 Read full review 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 Read full review Cons 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. Read full review 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. Read full review Alternatives Considered 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.
Read full review 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.
Read full review Return on Investment 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. Read full review 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. Read full review ScreenShots