You can read Docker Swarm's docs end-to-end in < 30 minutes, and have a cluster running in roughly the amount of time it takes to install Docker on three boxes.
Docker's failing was a failure to market Docker Swarm. Most people don't even know it exists, yet every single machine with Docker has it already! The last time I checked, they only had a single dev that was part-time allocated to supporting it.
So it's not so much that Docker failed to jump on the k8s bandwagon, so much as they built a wonderful thing that they never marketed and semi-abandoned, to focus on Docker Hub and other core Docker things they thought they'd be able to more directly monetize.
Fortunately, Docker Swarm remains a wonderful piece of software, even without particularly active investment, because it is a fairly complete offering for most use cases. And it seems to be growing in adoption.
Swarm might be great, but the ecosystem around k8s is massive. So my two choices are: ignore Docker entirely and do it like I've always done (Heroku, chef, puppet, etc. just managing my servers myself), or buy into containers and go with K8S.
To that extent, I only ever deal with K8S at work, and for my personal stuff I don't go near Docker at all. Why would I when I can get an 8GB/4CPU VPS for $9/mo and serve everything I care about from that? I've got fail2ban, systemd, caddy, and plenty of resources.
I can host mysql on the same machine because there isn't a god-given law about hosting your DB on a separate box. Same with anything else.
No need for Docker or Swarm or K8s.
I ignore docker myself. It's been too unstable for me and historically just costs me time, I'd rather just use systemd on a VPS. Occasionally when someone else has setup a complex system in docker I want to play with it has been convenient. Still, I avoid installing it at all.
This is exactly why I think new-cloud companies like fly.io, stackpath, deno.land, vercel.app are the future. No one wants to deal with muck if they can avoid it.
Cloud exposed data center primitives. Then, cloud-native laid bare the at-scale primitives. Imho, I think the industry is ripe for both NoCloud and NewCloud.
Did you read the article? It was about a company struggling to monetize an open source project. It hardly seems time for teenagerish M$-Windows asides on how you don't like people monetizing the software they are giving you for free.
Except that they didn't. With even a little bit of research you can easily find out that they made skipping updates a paid feature, and then even removed that after negative feedback!
People were even talking about downgrading below the version that introduced the 'paid update skipping', so any way you look at it, your comment doesn't make any sense.
- deploying k8s on bare metal is not easy. It was never really designed for this and to be fair Google has a vested interest in making you use GCP. EKS is nothing more than cobbled together scripts and you still need to do a lot of manual work
- k8s introduces a ton of terminology and new concepts (pods/service/deployment/ingress) not to mention the whole host of addons built on top like Istio.
It shouldn't take any decent dev more than a couple days to install minikube/k3s or use a cloud provider, play around and get comfortable with k8s.
- Cert Renewal / Rotation: https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/commandline/swarm_c...
- TLS Termination: Arguably this is an application layer concern and out of scope for an orchestration layer, but in either case use Nginx (or your favorite TLS terminating proxy) as your ingress point. This is equivalent to the Nginx ingress controller in k8s.
- Storage: Docker volumes (local or ceph, for distributed).
- Disaster Recovery: Node failure? Cluster failure? Data loss? What kind of DR? The strategies you'd use with Swarm will be very similar to those you'd use with k8s.
- Grouping resources: Labels and/or services.
In a Swarm world you'll have fewer moving pieces, far lower resource requirements, and will manage it all in a docker-compose file(s). You'll also get things like service discovery, routing, and secrets management for "free". No additional configuration needed.
You linked Swarm CA renewal operations; this is maybe 1/50 of the functionality of cert-manager. Is there a product like cert-manager that I can run on Swarm that's tightly integrated?
Why not have ingress intrinsically linked to the underlying reaources like k8s does? Your suggestion means that someone needs to come up with a methodology and automation to update ingress with Swarm. Yeah, it's obviously possible but imo, Traefik ingress reaources are way easier to manage with config spread across far fewer places.
Storage.. I have an nfs storage provider in k8s which allows me to dynamically create storage with lifecycle management included... for free... just because I'm using k8s.
DR as in something happens to my house or other technical issues which bring down my cluster. I would posit that it's much easier for me to restore a cluster because it's all yaml and imo more descriptive and capable than swarm yaml syntax.
I think you get my point. Yes, you can do it all with Swarm but with things like k3s and k0s, it's just as easy to start using k8s. And way more help, docs, and tooling to boot.
"I'm going to use this product/project."
"You shouldn't use that, use this instead."
"But this product/project has all these features I want."
"Sure but you can just build and maintain those features yourself if you want. It's open source, after all!"
Or alternately:
"Well no one really needs those anyway, it's just people being told that they do."
I've been hearing this same refrain for over twenty years now. It seems as though some people don't understand that there's actual value in having a system that just works, rather than one that you have to build and maintain yourself just to emulate the system that works.
Specifically, it feels like you are missing that the people who argue against k8s are saying that it is extremely difficult to configure, and so instead of this clean "some people don't understand that it is nice to have a system that just works", it feels like the argument is actually about a tradeoff between what you think is easier to put together: a single system with a million options that seem to all need to be configured or it doesn't work or a handful of systems that are each easy to understand in separate, but where you will need to do all the glue manually.
You're no more right or wrong here than anyone else is.
> It seems as though some people don't understand that there's actual value in having a system that just works, rather than one that you have to build and maintain yourself just to emulate the system that works.
This, however, feels like a lie.
It might "just work" because of the efforts of hundreds of engineers that are in the employ of the larger cloud vendors, because they're handling all of the problems in the background, however that will also cost you. It might also "just work" in on prem deployments because you simply haven't run into any problems yet... and in my experience it's not a matter of "Whether?" but rather one of "When?"
And when these problems inevitably do surface, you have to ask yourself, whether you have the capacity to debug them and mitigate them. In the case of K3s clusters, or another lightweight Kubernetes distro that might be doable. However, if you're dealing with a large distro like RKE or your own custom one, then you might have to debug this complex, fragmented and distributed system to get to the root cause and then figure out how to solve it.
There's definitely a reason why so many DevOps specialists with Kubernetes credentials are so well paid right now. There's also a reason for why many of the enterprise deployments of Kubernetes that i've seen are essentially black holes of manhours, much like implementing Apache Kafka when something like RabbitMQ might have sufficed - sometimes because of chasing after hype and doing CV driven development, other times because the people didn't know enough about the other options out there. There's also a reason for why Docker Swarm is still alive and kicking despite how its maintenance and development have been mismanaged, as well as why HashiCorp Nomad is liked by many.
In short:
The people who will try to build their own complex systems will most likely fail and will build something undocumented, unmaintainable, buggy and unstable.
The people who try to adapt the technologies that are better suited for large scale deployments for their own needs, might find that the complexity grinds their velocity to a halt and makes them waste huge amounts of effort in maintaining this solution.
The people who want to make someone else deal with these complexities and just want the benefits of the tech, will probably have to pay appropriately for this, which sometimes is a good deal, but other times is a bad one and also ensures vendor lock.
The people who reevaluate what they're trying to do and how much they actually need to do, might sometimes settle for a lightweight solution which does what's necessary, not much more and leads to vaguely positive outcomes.
This is the real value of Kubernetes. I'm at my fourth kubernetes shop and the deployments, service, ingress, pod specs all look largely the same. From an operations standpoint the actual production system looks the same, the only difference between companies is how the deployments are updated and what triggers the container build and how fast they're growing. Giant development/engineering systems went from very specialized, highly complex systems, to a mundane, even boring part of the company. Infrastructure should be boring, and it should be easy to hire for these roles. That's what Kubernetes does.
Oh, and it scales too, but I'd say 95% of companies running their workloads on k8s don't need the scaling it is capable of.
Folks here are making sound arguments for swarm and alternatives and they are totally valid. But for an experienced engineer who needed to start their homelab back up after a long hiatus, I will never look back once for choosing k8s. Honestly some of the most fun I've had with computers in a long time and great experience for when I move into a k8s related $job.
Only?
I have had a home server for fifteen years and used to have a homemade router. That's significantly more time than I have ever spent on them. I don't even bother maintaining scripts for my home installation. I have reinstalled it once in the past decade and it took me significantly less time than writing said scripts would have. There was enough things I wanted to do differently that any scripts would have been useless by that point anyway.
At that point, it sounds more like a hobby than something saving you time.
That's not my experience at all. Plenty of web apps for self hosting are pretty simple. You just install the packet, read the config files, turn on and off what you need and you are good to go. Since systemd made that easy, most apps now come preconfigured to use a dedicated users and drop the capabilities they don't need. If they don't, you are two lines aways from doing it in their service file.
Then I just throw Caddy in front of everything I want to access from outside my local network and call it a day.
Or perhaps one of the lightweight ones, like K3s ( https://k3s.io/ ) or k0s ( https://k0sproject.io/ )?
Maybe a turnkey one, like RKE ( https://rancher.com/products/rke/ )?
Or did you use something like kubespray ( https://kubespray.io/#/ ) to create a cluster in a semi automated fashion?
Alternatively, perhaps you built your cluster from scratch or maybe used kubeadm ( https://kubernetes.io/docs/setup/production-environment/tool... ) and simply got lucky?
Out of all of those, my experiences have only been positive with K3s (though i haven't tried k0s) and RKE, especially when using the latter with Rancher ( https://rancher.com/ ) or when using the former with Portainer ( https://www.portainer.io/solutions ).
In most of the other cases, i've run into a variety of problems:
- different networking implementations that work inconsistently ( https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/cluster-administration/addons/#networking-and-network-policy )
- general problems with networking, communication between nodes, and certain node components refusing to talk to others and thus nodes not allowing anything to be scheduled on them
- large CPU/RAM resource usage for even small clusters, which is unfortunate, given that i'm too poor to afford lots of either
- no overprovisioning support (when i last tried), leading to pods not being scheduled on nodes when there's plenty of resources available, due to unnecessary reservations
- problems with PVCs and storing data in host directories, like how Docker has bind mounts with few to no issues
- also, they recently stopped supporting the Docker shim and now you have to use containerd, which is unfortunate from a debugging perspective (since a lot of people out there actually like Docker CLI)
That said, when i compared the RAM usage of Docker Swarm with that of K3s, the picture was far better! My current approach is to introduce clients and companies to containers in the following fashion, if they don't use the cloud vendors: Docker --> Docker Compose --> Docker Swarm --> (check if there's need for more functionality) --> K3s.
The beautiful think is that because of the OCI standard you can choose where and how to run your app, as well as use tools like Kompose to make migration very easy: https://kompose.io/
It's not like cert-manager does rocket science that is possible only on k8s
> Why not have ingress intrinsically linked to the underlying reaources like k8s does? Your suggestion means that someone needs to come up with a methodology and automation to update ingress with Swarm. Yeah, it's obviously possible but imo, Traefik ingress reaources are way easier to manage with config spread across far fewer places.
Traefik can provide a lightweight ingress for Docker Swarm clusters alongside ensuring most of the certificate related functionality that you might want for web apps: https://traefik.io/
In particular, here's an example of using it with Docker Swarm: https://dockerswarm.rocks/traefik/
It integrates well enough that you can set up listening for particular ports, domain names, set up basicauth, use Let's Encrypt for certificates and do many other things with labels inside of your Docker Compose file!
> Storage.. I have an nfs storage provider in k8s which allows me to dynamically create storage with lifecycle management included... for free... just because I'm using k8s.
Docker also supports volume plugins, some of which were carried out of the base offering not to create needless bloat (much like what K3s does with many other in tree plugins of the heavyweight Kubernetes distros): https://docs.docker.com/engine/extend/plugins_volume/
Here's a pretty good documentation page on how to set them up and use them: https://docs.docker.com/storage/volumes/#share-data-among-ma...
You'll find examples of SSHFS, NFS, CIFS/Samba there, which should cover most base use cases. The latter two are supported by the default "local" driver (which feels like a naming failure on their part), so it's safe to say that Docker and Docker Swarm support both NFS and CIFS/Samba out of the box.
> DR as in something happens to my house or other technical issues which bring down my cluster. I would posit that it's much easier for me to restore a cluster because it's all yaml and imo more descriptive and capable than swarm yaml syntax.
I'm afraid i don't follow here.
Here's how you set up a cluster: https://docs.docker.com/engine/swarm/swarm-tutorial/create-s...
There are also commands for managing nodes within the Swarm: https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/commandline/node/
There are also commands for managing the stacks that are deployed: https://docs.docker.com/engine/reference/commandline/stack/
That's literally it. Verbose YAML doesn't imply any additional quality. If you want, feel free to look at the Compose specification too see all of the supported options: https://docs.docker.com/compose/compose-file/compose-file-v3...
With Swarm, i've actually found that it's actually very easy to both manage the cluster, resolve any issues (because of very few moving parts), or even just wipe it all and create it anew with all of the deployments in a few commands. Furthermore, there is a very lovely Ansible Swarm module if you'd like: https://docs.ansible.com/ansible/latest/collections/communit...
In short, fewer moving parts equal easier administration and fewer Byzantine failures in this case.
> I think you get my point. Yes, you can do it all with Swarm but with things like k3s and k0s, it's just as easy to start using k8s. And way more help, docs, and tooling to boot.
K3s and other projects like it are a step in the right direction for Kubernetes in smaller deployments! That said, in my experience, the documentation of Docker Swarm is comparatively better to that of many of the Kubernetes distro projects, simply because of how mature and stable Docker and Docker Swarm both are.
I don't doubt that the situation will change in a few years, but until then, Swarm is more than enough.
My problem with swarm is that the overlay networking was super flaky. Dead containers still being registered on the network cause every X requests to fail (since it’s round robin) because it’s routing to an overlay IP that doesn’t exist.
Further, I could never find storage adapters for cloud storage that continued to be maintained. Rexray was the longest standing but hasn’t had a commit since Jan 2019.
I will say that it's still a fair amount of complexity, but it's a workable amount of complexity on a day-to-day basis.
I run bitwarden, syncthing, transmission etc. on a single box at home and this setup works great.
Overall, though: Traefik proxying to Docker Containers has been _very_ smooth in my Homelab: I'm loving it.
- pick up Swarm or Nomad now, and then potentially be blamed for the expensive and costly migration to k8s - pick up k8s now, waste the time of your (voiceless) devs and ops on an overengineered solution, but retain access to the larger pool of technologies and a smooth upgrade path should the need arise
The kind of reasoning you pose is similar to "SQL doesn't scale to infinity, so start with an infinitely scalable eventually consistent document store". This line of thinking is dangerous to most companies, and often the death of startups. Assume YAGNI.
There's some truth to "Nobody ever got fired for choosing IBM", but IBM was never a good choice for anyone except consultants. k8s isn't too far from that.
Anyone can leann k8s basic principles in a day or 2. And managing a cluster is arguably easier than managing a typical bunch of EX2 instances+ALB etc that almost everyone uses.
k8s also has the advantage of ubiquity. If I had to manage a bunch of containers on a cluster with > 10 nodes, I'd pick k8s over swarm/nomad etc.
Your argument is 'k8s isn't a good choice for anyone except Google-scale' and I don't think thats true at all.
As someone who has actively avoided k8s (despite enjoying devops), my observation has been quite the opposite. At my current (small) org we have one devops guy who spends all day working on k8s related work (configuration, troubleshooting, automation, etc.) And we're about to start looking for another devops engineer because he's swamped. We only have a handful of clusters up and running so far.
k8s is the poster child for overcomplicating matters for folks that don't have Google-scale problems.
There are problems that people run into. One is not needing more than one computer -- if everything you need to run fits on one computer, you might as well use systemd as your orchestrator. (Which people also say is overly complicated, but really it's just extremely misunderstood.) The other is not understanding Kubernetes enough. A lot of people just explode random helm charts into their cluster and are mad that it's hard to maintain. Basically, adding another abstraction layer only helps if you can debug the actual thing on the surface -- otherwise, you're just setting a time bomb for yourself. (And, helm charts require you beg the maintainers for every feature you could possibly need, and once enough people have done that you just have raw k8s manifests where everything is called some random word instead of its actual thing. Really bad. Use Kustomize or jsonnet!)
ECS isn't exactly simple either, but it is manageable for small shops where the developer is the devops guy.
Not to mention that you end up scaling to a size where k8s is a sound solution, that "costly" migration is going to be a rounding error on your balance sheet
This. Just because your services are containerized doesn't mean they'll scale well with each order of magnitude. Likely you'll need to re-architect other parts of the system to work at your new scale.
Kubernetes has a serious growth ceiling - way below what Nomad has. So if you actually have a problem of interesting scale, it's almost certainly "pick Nomad now, or get blamed for a costly migration later when you realise that Kubernetes is not for you".
Docker Swarm remains far simpler to set up, run, and troubleshoot than Kubernetes.
I just can't choose it over K8s, though, knowing that it's unsupported.
My fallback, if Swarm is ever removed, is Hashicorp's Nomad. I've only used it in a hobby capacity, but is (at face value, at least) another wonderful piece of software. I've used k8s a bunch in production (including right now at my current employer) and just can't recommend it – it's a technical distraction for most teams.
Borg is great if you have Google problems. K8s is not Borg.
That said, if your tooling or products or software supports kubernetes, which a lot more are these days, then it becomes a lot easier. A lot of companies these days are saying "Here's how to install it, or just grab this helm chart"; Gitlab, for example. We even had one piece of software we were testing which only had two options: cloud-hosted, or self-hosted on k8s. Nothing else was supported.
k8s doesn't seem to be any easier to configure, with the possible exception of microk8s (which has its own issues), but the amount of things you can do with it once it's up and running is compelling.
It is very simple to spin a minimal distro based cluster. It is relatively simple to have it up and running your solution. Sure getting Kubernetes from the source and tailoring all the required components to run cluster with full HA etc' is a complex stuff, but building a private cloud based on vanilla Kubernetes isn't the only or the most common use case.
Kubernetes has become a speeding bullet, it won't be easy to catch and it has to run through a lot of walls to slow down for a competitor to do any damage to it's dominance.
Ha, I can at least assure you we're not oblivious. Nomad has a product manager from Mesosphere and most of HashiCorp's products integrate deeply with Kubernetes. We're well aware Kubernetes is the juggernaut to which every other scheduler has succumbed.
I believe there's room for both Nomad and Kubernetes. Whether as competitors or complements, having more than one vibrant project in the orchestration space will hopefully make all the projects better for users. Any one project has to make tradeoffs that improve the user experience for some while degrading it for others. For example Kubernetes has an IP-per-Pod network abstraction which provides an excellent out of the box PaaS-like experience for microservices in the cloud. On the other hand Nomad's more flexible network model more easily supports networks outside of flat cloud topologies whether it's small home raspberrypi clusters or globally distributed edge compute.
What I was calling out is the abundance of people who claim it is the greatest thing since the tech equivalent of sliced bread, and love to point out how simple it is despite requiring the need for Consul to run it at enterprise scale and likely also Vault if you need secret management in any form, which then also needs Consul if you want to run it at scale. I have intimate experience with running Vault and Consul and have advised colleagues for the better part of 2 years on utilising Vault (either as basic secrets management or some of its more advanced features). IIRC the recommendation from HC is also running a third Consul cluster for service discovery. If running Nomad at scale is anything like Vault, then it isn't as simple as people make it out to be, never mind the fact that you'll probably be running 5 different clusters of 3 different products to provide functionality that doesn't fulfill half of what Kubernetes gives.
The complexity of setting up a Nomad cluster due to Vault and Consul being soft requirements is very real and something we're hoping to (finally!) make progress on in the coming months.
the only thing which is not so easy is LoadBalancing to extern i.e. kube-vip/metallb both can be a pain (externalTrafficPolicy: Local is still a shit show). k3s basically creates a k8s cluster with everything except good load balancing over multiple nodes
Nomad does not have a first class LoadBalancing concept in keeping with its unopinionated network model, although we may add ingress/loadbalancing someday. Right now most people use Traefik or Nginx with Consul for ingress, and Consul Connect is popular for internal service mesh. Obviously unfortunate extra complexity over having it builtin, but Nomad has been focused more on core scheduling than these ancillary services so far.
Hard[0] disagree[1] on this[2]. Nomad is a direct competitor of Kubernetes.
[0] https://www.nomadproject.io/docs/nomad-vs-kubernetes
[1] https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/a-kubernetes-user-s-guide-to-...
[2] https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/nomad-kubernetes-a-pragmatic-...
There have been lots of speeding, hard-to-catch bullets in the past.
K8s and devops has destroyed us developers' productivity, confidence, and morale.
To me what killed Swarm is Google needing to spread k8s.
If you are eyeing at GCE but decide you want a bit more flexibility, going for a Google backed solution gives you k8s, and Swarm isn’t even on the choice list.
Choosing a third party means you’re on your own to bootstrap/make it live, or contract a vendor that might not live longer than you. That’s fine for companies who strategically choose to invest for the long term, sadly that’s not most of the companies out there.
Kubernetes is for a lot of organisations pretty difficult and way too much for a start. We used rancher for solving our problems which did a fine job, rancher got a worse when they made the move to Kubernetes.
In the beginning they (docker) also removed a lot of options like cpu throttling and configuration and such that LXC had from the start. They also had their own version (a shim) of pid 1, some point at the time. And other things that made it a little painful to properly containerise. I was often very frustrated by docker and fell back on lxc.
There was also something with the management of docker images like pruning and cleaning and other of much needed functionality that just didn't get included.
Also something with the container registries which I a this point can't remember (maybe deleting images or authentication out of the box or something that made it hard to host yourself).
Anyway I think it's failed because it failed to listen to its users and act upon them. They really had a lot of chances I think. I think they just made some wrong business decisions. I always felt they had a strong technical CTO that really was deep on the product but not on the whole pipeline from dev->x->prod workflows.
(Early Rancher employee)
We liked our Cattle orchestration and ease of use of 1.x as much as the next person. Hell, I still like a lot of it better.
But just as this article talks about with Swarm, embracing K8s was absolutely the right move. We were the smallest of at least 4 major choices.
Picking the right horse early enough and making K8s easier to use led us to a successful exit and continued relevance (now in SUSE) instead of a slow painful spiral to irrelevance like Swarm, Mesos, and others and eventual fire-sale.
But if you're on-prem, and have a tonne of metal and just arrived in 2014 via a time machine, swarm was so much simpler and simpler that if you were a sysadmin who already had their own scripts -- their own jenkins-powered IC and git-hooks that built and deployed -- whatever it is you were building -- then swarm looked like a nice gradual extension of that, and k8s looked more like starting over and admitting defeat.
Don't get me wrong, I would absolutely go with k8s on any greenfield project but there's a huge huge opportunity for someone to take everyone's VM orchestration tools and quietly and semi-transparently add k8s support for gradual migrations.
Personally, k8s is one of the easiest system I learned to use in the past few years. It has many components, too many that one can't practically understand all of them well. But every component follows the same design principle, so there's a clear path for a noob like me to get the full picture step by step.
The first thing I read on k8s was controller pattern[0]. Then everything becomes so easy to learn. Something wrong with a pod? Find its controller and start troubleshooting from there. Oh, the pod is controlled by a replicaset? Check replicaset controller. The replicaset is managed by a deployment? You know where to go.
That's why I said it is only complicated in some sense. I saw a lot of people started learning this system by going through a list of popular components and their concepts. I would've gotten lost easily and probably given up if I did the same in the beginning.
[0]: https://kubernetes.io/docs/concepts/architecture/controller/
On the plus side, if someone else configured the cluster correctly for you (e.g. a Cloud service like GKE), then it's a breeze to use.
It was barebones like Mesos but they managed to focus on the right things early on. Once these features and a bit of an ecosystem started to build, the question if we should stay on Mesos with a bunch of homegrown management tooling or move to Kubernetes wasn't even a decision anymore. There was still a significant amount of code which we later just deleted because it became a first class feature or the community implemented something much better.
Does it?
It seems like there are three kinds of complexity involved here: the essential complexity of the total problem set, the essential complexity of a specific company's problems, and the amount of complexity experienced by a user as they try to solve those problems.
Let's stipulate that Kubernetes needs to be that complicated for Google's needs. I'm not totally sure that's true, but let's pretend for now. So we'll say you're right for the first kind.
But I'm still not seeing it for the other two.
For modest deployment efforts, Kubernetes is a giant pain in the ass. It's just way more complicated than needed for many non-Google use cases. I tried setting up Kubernetes for a bunch of personal stuff I run and it was egregious overkill. I persisted until my home lighting system went dark because some internal Kubernetes keys expired and it decided that just not working was a good failure mode. Last time I mentioned this on HN several people said, well duh, obviously you shouldn't run it just for yourself. And that's fine; every technology has an expected operational envelope. But there are an awful lot of projects out there that have between 0.0 and 0.5 sysadmins. For them it's too complex. Kubernetes is just too complex for many people's needs.
And the other side of that is complexity of experience. Modern processors are fantastically complicated. I'm on a mailing list for people in finance who micro-optimize everything to maximize response speed. Those people know incredible amounts about exactly what different processors do. And they have to. But most working developers know about 1% of that because a lot of people work very hard to hide the complexity from them. I don't think that really happened with Kubernetes.
At this point, it is what it is. It's much easier to scale a technology up than down, so I expect it'll always be like this. But For whatever comes after Kubernetes, I'd like to see much more attention paid to more common use cases.
I don't know that if Swarm had those features if it would really catch on like Kubernetes did. They didn't have the same budget as Google on that side of things.
Swarm is still what 99% of companies need when they adopt Kubernetes, and is probably 1/10th to 1/20th the cost. Somebody needs to re-invent swarm as an independent project so that we can stop investing in K8s. The cost of K8s isn't even in the complexity, it's in all the millions of side-effects of the complexity, like security, fragmentation, and specialization.
I guess this strongly depends on one's needs. I mean, if all you want to do is glue together a couple of nodes and have a few stacks running on them, do we really need all the bells and whistles?
I mean, with Docker Swarm anyone can get ingress right from the start on any bare ones cloud provider. Deploy your Docker Swarm cluster, slap a service like Traefik, and you're done. It's a 10min job. What else does Kubernetes brings to the table?
They were not wrong on saying that Kubernetes was very complicated, at least in some sense. In the beginning no one wanted to use it because they could easily setup Docker Swarm with minimal effort. This argument still pops up frequently on HN when there's a new post about Kubernetes.
I guess the problem was they didn't realize why Kubernetes needs to be that complicated. And if a system is complicated for good reasons, that's actually good business opportunity and tons of people and companies will be willing to make the effort to fill that gap.