[ffsm8]

I'm not sure I can agree with that interpretation. CSI is basically an interface that has to be implemented.

If you discount issues like that, you can safely say that it's impossible to have any issues with CSI, because it's always going to be with one of it's implementation.

That feels a little disingenuous, but maybe that's just me.

[remram]

So if you run Kubernetes in the cloud, you consider the entire cloud provider's block storage implementation to be part of Kubernetes too?

For example you'd say AWS EBS is part of Kubernetes?

[ffsm8]

In the context of this discussion, which is about the complexity of the k8s stack: yes.

Youre ultimately gonna have to use a storage of some form unless you're just a stateless service/keep the services with state out of k8s. That's why I'd include it, and the fact that you can use multiple storage backends, each with their own challenges and pitfalls makes k8s indeed quiet complex.

You could argue that multinode PaaS is always going to be complex, and frankly- I'd agree with that. But that was kinda the original point. At least as far as I interpreted it: k8s is not simple and you most likely didn't need it either. But if you do need a distributed PaaS, then it's probably a good idea to use it. Doesn't change the fact that it's a complex system.

[remram]

So you're comparing Kubernetes to what? Not running services at all? In that case I agree, you're going to have to set up Linux, find a storage solution, etc as part as your setup. Then write your app. It's a lot of work.

But would I say that your entire Linux installation and the cloud it runs on is part of Kubernetes? No.

[lovich]

> So you're comparing Kubernetes to what? Not running services at all?

Surprisingly there were hosted services on the internet prior to kubernetes existing. Hell, I even have reason to believe that the internet may possibly predate Docker

[remram]

That is my point! If you think "just using SystemD services in a VM" is easy but "Kubernetes is hard", and you say "Kubernetes is hard" is because of Linux, cgroups, cloud storage, mount namespaces, ... Then I can't comprehend that argument, because those are things that exist in both solutions.

Let's be clear on what we're comparing or we can't argue at all. Kubernetes is hard if you have never seen a computer before, I will happily concede that.

[lovich]

ah I apologize for my snark then, I interpreted your sentence as _you_ believing that the only step simpler than using Kubernetes was to not have an application running

I see how you were asking the GP that question now

[techpression]

Next you’re going to claim the internet existed before Google too.

[ffsm8]

Various options around for simple alternatives, the simplest is probably just running single node.

Maybe with fail over for high availability.

Even that's fine for most deployments that aren't social media sites, aren't developed by multiple teams of devs and don't have any operations people on payroll.