Google Kubernetes Engine Reviews

This is Prophaze deployed in Kubernetes. So we have a Kubernetes. For example, Uber, they have all their sectors deployed in Kubernetes. There should be a native production for Kubernetes. We can have a separate cloud security solution for Kubernetes. Your solution has to be in Kubernetes. Because it should be a Kubernetes solution. So the WAF, in general, can be deployed in Kubernetes as a network solution.

It's like instantaneous scaling up. If you have a lot of traffic coming in, things like RAM and hard disk are easily able to scale.

It should support the latest GP use. I also think it should support load balancing.

I have worked with Google Kubernetes Engine for about three years. We are using version 10.

It's pretty much stable. I would say 99.9%, excellent.

Google Kubernetes Engine is very scalable, in fact, that is one of the best features.

For Google and Amazon, the Kubernetes is along the line of normal support. You email them or you can call them, but email is the preferable way of contacting them.

I heard about the normal service. Some of the eCommerce stuff, size or any of the other sites, you have a lot of traffic coming to your size. It is easy to buy if you have little traffic. You'll be able to buy and resell or if you still have money you can buy you two together. So, if you look at the last five years, people started to think about the cloud. You buy a cloud instance, you customize your configuration. People are now starting to look at Docker and Kubernetes.

The initial setup of Kubernetes Engine is quite straightforward. With just a few clicks, you can have it up and running.

We do everything from scratch here in our company. We have complete control over our selection. We use three people for maintenance.

Currently, it costs around $1000 per month which sorted our deployment. So once we get more clients, having a huge suffix, costs can go up. 

My advice to anybody considering this solution is to understand that you need to have everything ready before implementation. You need to have a migration strategy.

I would rate Google Kubernetes Engine an eight out of ten.

We primarily use this solution for authorization and service deployment.

The CLI commands are good.

The network configuration has to be simplified.

I would like to see a more user-friendly interface. Currently, it is a little complex, and the technical guides are not easy to follow. Compared to other applications, the documentation needs a lot of improvement.

Cluster-based software support needs to be improved.

Stability-wise, this solution is really good. 

Scalability for this solution depends on the application. For normal microservice-related applications where there is no clustering, it is really evolved and easy to scale. However, for cluster-based applications such as MariaDB, or other cluster-based tools, scalability is complex and it needs to have more documentation.

We are using the solution for managing deployments, so there are only five or six users.

We have not subscribed to outside help for this solution. We have been using Google to search the forums for issues that we encounter. There is no defined place where I can refer problems and find answers. 

We did not use another solution prior to this one.

The initial setup is not straightforward. While it is not too difficult, there are some complexities. For example, sometimes when we add to the network there is an error and something goes wrong, which means that we have to start again, from scratch.

This is an open source solution, so there is no pricing or licensing.

I evaluated Docker Swarm, but compared to that, Kubernetes is very good. Docker Swarm is only for small applications.

This is a really good product for independent applications or microservices. The downtime is minimal, and we have even made it zero downtime for deployment. However, when they are cluster-based applications, it is really complex.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case is to arrange the correct CICD (Continuous Integration / Continous Deployment) conveyor to provide for continuous changes in production.

The improvement is mainly connected to the speed of change implementation. In the case of the automatic convenor, we spent less time due to the automation of the process. Before using this solution, it was a lot of manual tasks and a lot of people participated in the process.

The most valuable feature is the horizontal staging of applications. Other important features include isolation of applications and more effective usage of infrastructure due to less consumption of resources by containers.

I think that security is an important point, and there should be additional features for the evaluation of data in containers that will create a more secure environment for usage in multi-parent models.

We have not seen any signs of instability, and have an optimistic view of the solution.

Scalability is an important feature of this solution, and we are happy with it.

We have approximately one hundred people using the solution. It is mostly developers and quality assurance people who are working on the preparation for CICD.

Once we move to production, next year, our usage will increase.

I think technical support is good enough.

We did not use an integrated solution prior to this. Rather, it was done in a more traditional way. This included virtual machine creation, installation of additional software, and connection to an external CICD conveyor, etc. We are switching because we are interested in more widely using continuous technology.

Our motivation for switching is to simplify creating a CICD process. We have a lot of small changes and after testing, we will be using an automated process for product delivery.

We are currently in a test phase and are estimating the feasibility of moving this to production. Our plan is to finalize testing by the end of this year and move the solution to production at the beginning of next year.

We have two people working the maintenance of this solution, but frankly speaking, it is not enough. We are planning to improve our skills and capacity and expand these resources.

We communicate directly with somebody who is part of OpenShift. They are top guys and have enough experience to help us build our system. It's no problem.

We do not have a local team in Russia, but at some point, that may change and we will use a local integrator. 

We are planning to reach a positive ROI using this solution.

We are planning to use external support, and hire a commercial partner for it. Usually, this is about twenty percent of the solution.

We have been watching what is happening the market, and for some time it has been obvious that Kubernetes has the most followers and most potential. This is why we are starting with Kubernetes from the beginning.

My advice is not to implement this solution unless there is a genuine demand for it from the business side. It can be useful to start from the bottom of the infrastructure and take it to the highest level because it requires changes in the development and business levels to work with this technology.

I think that there is enough documentation available to start to work with this product. The technology provides a very good opportunity to grow and improve.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

I am just starting with it. I am testing different platforms. I've done some deployments, and with some samples, I've tried to install the Kubernetes application.

I am using its latest version.

It's easy to manage and deploy. It's the best. 

I can have some controls through some parameters, and it's very good. 

There is a limitation for our infrastructure. It's very complex to see in one dashboard all the components and all the behavior on performance. I am looking for some additional tools for that. If I want to check the disk or file storage, it gets complex. There should be an integrated dashboard so that we can manage everything through a single pane.

I've been using this solution for two or three months.

It's stable.

I haven't yet used their support.

Its pricing is good. They bill us only per user. That's nice.

I'd rate it an eight out of ten.

I use the tool to host a SaaS application.We also provision the clusters to help students learn how to use Kubernetes.

The solution is more user-friendly than AWS or Azure. I can also easily scale out the service in the future when the number of customers grows. GKE is the leader of Kubernetes service and it can be easily updated. I love the tool's user interfaces. 

I use the Firebase tool with GKE and it would be helpful if the solution can give notifications when we reach the budget limit. 

I have been working with the solution for more than 8 years. 

The product is stable. 

The tool is scalable and we have around 3000 users for the product. 

The tech support's service is good. 

Neutral

The solution's setup is very easy. 

The solution's ROI is good. 

The solution's price is reasonable. 

I would rate the product a nine out of ten. 

We use the product to host a loyalty application.

The product has valuable security features. It can connect with multiple DevOps tools. It offers vouchers during service upgrades.

The product’s visible allocation feature needs improvement.

We have been using Google Kubernetes Engine for one year.

The product is overall stable.

The technical support services need improvement in terms of response time.

We use AWS EBS.

It is easy to install.

It is a nice tool. I recommend it to others and rate it a nine out of ten.