[fesc]

I stopped reading when the solution for DNS was AWS and the solution for stateful sets was AWS EC2.

This is just a very weird comparison. Seems like the author doesn’t understand why people run K8s.

Of course they also “managed” several k8s clusters using… wait for it… AWS.

I’d say, when you are all in AWS, then fine don’t use k8s. But you also don’t need Nomad then in most cases.

And if you do need nomad on AWS then that’s fine as well, but it’s not comparable to k8s in general.

[OJFord]

I think that was confusingly written, but what it means is 'k8s recommends not using it for database, but in Nomad is fine' - the EC2 instances are just nodes like any other, but 'tagged for db'.

And if self-hosting Nomad on AWS is (allegedly) so much easier than operating managed k8s (EKS), isn't that more damning rather than less?

The all-in AWS answer I suppose would be ECS. I quite like it but I think for anything beyond small, more than a few services part of the same system, I can understand wanting to run Nomad (or use EKS) instead.

[GauntletWizard]

You can run databases that way in K8s as well. Nobody does, because it's a terrible abstraction for high availability of conventional databases. The operator pattern does the opposite of help, creating more moving parts.

The problem with running databases yourself is that it's hard to run databases, and having dedicated physical hardware works, until it doesn't. Nomad make it easy to run dedicated physical hardware for it. As soon as you have a failed EBS volume with your DB on it. Failed EBS volumes still happen frequently, though we've mostly obviated the problem by using managed dbs.