Is Kubernetes worth it? | InfoWorld

I'll go ahead and say it: When looking closer at the total cost of ownership associated with Kubernetes, more traditional development methods still have compelling advantages. I've used containers and Kubernetes since they first appeared on the cloud computing scene many years ago.

Kubernetes introduces a level of complexity that more traditional development tools don't. Managing a Kubernetes cluster requires a deep understanding of its architecture and components, from networking to storage to security.

This complexity requires skilled personnel capable of managing and optimizing a Kubernetes environment. By contrast, traditional development approaches and tools often rely on more straightforward architectures that can be managed with the skill sets most enterprises already have.

Of course, this will vary greatly from one company to another, but the cost of obtaining Kubernetes skills or training existing staff is usually much higher than any benefit of using this technology. A Kubernetes cluster requires a great deal of overhead, although Kubernetes promises to reduce infrastructure costs through efficient container orchestration.

Traditional development approaches may utilize more monolithic architectures. I had one project build the same system using both approaches; the traditional monolithic architecture infrastructure cost was one-third of the Kubernetes deployment-just for that specific system.

Of course, there could be other reasons to go with Kubernetes beyond the fact that it looks good on the CV. Maintaining a Kubernetes environment is operationally complex.

Initial setup and configuration can be time-consuming and complicated, even though Kubernetes can automate and streamline deployment processes. Traditional development and deployment methods might need more container automation and scalability benefits.

Kubernetes and container-based deployments offer high scalability and fault tolerance levels, which is why we use them, but they do have issues we don't see with traditional development. Failures are always more numerous with Kubernetes deployments.

Traditional architectures may offer fewer scalability options but can provide a more contained environment that is easier to secure and manage. Although Kubernetes and containers offer significant advantages in scalability, efficiency, and resource utilization, their TCO can sometimes be out of whack.

I usually ask questions about the trade-off of using more traditional approaches and most often get blank stares and non-answers, which shows that the TCO analysis was not done. The complexities and costs of managing a Kubernetes environment highlight that traditional development and deployment methods still hold value.

If you're an organization with limited IT resources, you really need to pay attention to TCO. Money spent on Kubernetes-based systems removes resources from other more pressing needs..