[andrewstuart2]

> If you have four servers than obviously all of this stuff is overkill.

I disagree, actually. I have four servers at home, and have some pods that have been running little tinkery things, and a bunch of open source software, with ridiculous uptime and little or no effort, even when I reboot one of those "servers" to do some gaming on Windows.

Now, do I need that uptime for all of those services? Not really. But for some of them, I want it, and it'd be annoying if I had to go figure out why they'd stopped running. The reality is, things just keep ticking without me worrying when they're on k8s.

These skills transfer into very in-demand job skills as well, and if I ever build anything that gains traction, I already have all the tools, configs, and knowledge to deploy that app across 500 generic cloud servers.

[jrockway]

I agree with you. I think people tend to associate Kubernetes with the other underlying problems they're having with their infrastructure when they start thinking about using it. Just like it's tough when moving from 0 pieces of software in production to 1 piece of software in production, it's just as tough moving from 1 piece to 2 pieces. But if you do that transition correctly, then the 2 to infinity part is easy. I think you will find it just as painful to make that move with any orchestration system. (CloudFormation? Convox? They're not easy, and you get the feeling that nobody else is using them.)

I wouldn't recommend Kubernetes if you only have one application you run in production. Just rsync your production image to production whenever you remember to do a release. But if you have more than 1 thing, it's time to start thinking about it, because the "do whatever" that works great with 1 thing starts to break down when 1 becomes 2. That is not Kubernetes's fault. That's just the nature of the beast.