[Apocalypse_666]

There's the rub: we don't actually need Kubernetes at all! Just a case of resume-driven development by a predecessor

[tw04]

To me it sounds like the problem wasn't kubernetes, the problem was that you (your predecessor) rolled your own instead of going down the path of using something with a support number. Redhat obviously comes to mind first but there are countless options with enterprise support included.

Have you considered rebuilding/moving the containers onto something more "enterprisey"?

[fooker]

A 'support number' does not solve the technical issues with kubernetes, it just kicks the responsibility down the line so that someone else has to deal with it.

[thunderbong]

That's practically 99% of the time really. Even in enterprise scenarios Kubernetes is very, very rarely required.

I've yet to come across a single instance where such rapid scaling happens and stays consistently high.

Most of the time you know well in advance when your resources will be put to the test.

[pgwhalen]

I’m not trying to defend kubernetes complexity or saying it should be used for deployment of all server-side software, but I’d push back on the oft-repeated idea that kubernetes is just solving for scale. It’s a model of deployment that happens to make scaling easy, but the model has many advantages other than scale.

[quadrifoliate]

Resume-driven development is unfortunate; but a valid strategy when employers who run everything on one server that hasn't been updated since 2003 start listing 5 years of Kubernetes experience as a requirement in their job posting.