News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Nomad vs. Kubernetes. Parent comment

Re:Nomad vs. Kubernetes by alexeldeib on Friday October 15, 2021 @04:16PM (#28882637)
It's "good enough" for most and extension points allow for filling the gaps.

This also dodges the crux of GP's argument -- instead of running 1 cluster with 10 components, you now need a half dozen clusters with 1 component each, but oops they all need to talk to each other with all the same fun TLS/authn/authz setup as k8s components.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nomad vs. Kubernetes by otterley on Friday October 15, 2021 @05:28PM (#28883319)
I'm a little confused. Why does the problem with K8S secrets necessitate having multiple clusters? One could take advantage of a more secure secrets system instead, such as Hashicorp Vault or AWS Secrets Manager.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nomad vs. Kubernetes by alexeldeib on Friday October 15, 2021 @05:29PM (#28883334)
The point is that once you're talking about comparable setups, you need all of Vault/Nomad/Consul and the complexity of the setup is much more than just "one binary" as hashi likes to put it.

> So now you have 3 separate Consul clusters, a Vault cluster, and a Nomad cluster. So what did you gain really?

GP's point was already talking about running Vault clusters, not sure you realized we aren't only talking about nomad.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Nomad vs. Kubernetes by otterley on Friday October 15, 2021 @05:39PM (#28883438)
The only thing I was trying to say is that although K8S offers secrets "for free," it's not best practice to consider the control plane to be a secure secrets store.
[ Parent | on HN ]