|
|
|
|
|
by rualca
1858 days ago
|
|
> The reason why kubernetes et al. are so popular is that the orchestration tools like ansible, puppet, salt, chef... they all failed to deliver ultimately great software. This assertion makes absolutely no sense at all, and reads like a Markov chain of buzzwords. Kubernetes is containers autoscaling, blue-green deployments, revertible deployment histories. Ansible and the like is configuration as code. That's it. The closest there is between kubernetes and configuration-as-code tools is Docker's dockerfile. |
|
Where they differ, is the approaches that they take to achieving that result:
So essentially, i believe that many people have the stance, that they can probably just set up an environment for an application and forget about it (or at least not constantly monitor it), which is more in line with what Ansible provides, whereas Kubernetes is more suited to situations where it's impossible to have "stable software" (i.e. most business applications, since they don't have the quality of projects like the Linux kernel).If you want fault tolerance, you have to do additional work with Ansible, like writing systemd services for restarts, manually setting up your load balancers and working on ensuring proper failover, as well as service discovery. And i'd reason that if something is hard to do, oftentimes it simply won't be done at all! Yet with Kubernetes, a lot of that comes out of the box (even though i think that it's often too complicated, K3s does seem sane, but personally Docker Swarm or Hashicorp Nomad hit the sweet spot of features vs complexity).