[MoOmer]

Many of the use cases described in the post are solved by service meshes.

So, in my opinion, the questions are introspective:

- “Do I have enough context to know what problem those solutions are solving, and to at least appreciate the problem space to understand why someone may solve it like this?”

- “Do I have or perceive those problem to impact my infrastructure/applications?”

- “Does the solution offered by the use cases described appeal to me?”

If yes at the end, then one potential implementation is a service mesh.

A lot of these are solved out-of-the-box with Hashicorp’s Nomad/Consul/Vault pairing, for example!

[remram]

It is true that a lot of those use cases are covered by "basic" Kubernetes (or Nomad) without the addition of Istio or similar, e.g. service discovery, load-balancing, circuit-breaking, autoscaling, blue-green, isolation, health checking...

Adding a service mesh onto Kubernetes seems to bring a lot of complexity for a few benefits (80% of the effort for the last 20% sort of deal).

[campbel]

> Adding a service mesh onto Kubernetes seems to bring a lot of complexity for a few benefits

I think the benefits are magnified in larger organizations or where operators and devs are not the same people. And the complexity is relative to which solution you pick. If you're already on Kubernetes, linkerd2 is relatively easy to install and manage; is that worth it? To me it has been in the past.

[nazka]

I like how you frame the questions. How many times people pick a technology without answering them? Even having some knowledge in them.

I am wondering does Nomad/Consul continue to scale after some level?

[chromatin]

I don't know about Consul, but Nomad has been scaled to 2,000,000 containers on >6000 hosts

https://www.hashicorp.com/c2m