This topic is discussed in episode #004 of our Cloud & DevOps Pod
The Hidden Costs of Kubernetes: What You Need to Know
Kubernetes, often hailed as a revolutionary technology for container orchestration, is increasingly becoming the go-to solution for organizations of all sizes. From startups to enterprises, Kubernetes provides a way to deploy, manage, and scale applications efficiently. However, as appealing as Kubernetes may be, there is one aspect that many businesses tend to overlook: the hidden costs, both in terms of money and operational overhead, particularly when it comes to keeping up with its relentless release schedule.
In this blog, we'll explore these hidden costs and what they could mean for your business, especially if you're using Kubernetes in production or considering adopting it. This analysis will dive into the financial and operational realities that could affect your decision to use Kubernetes, highlighting some lesser-known facts about the platform.
The Kubernetes Release Schedule: A Challenge in Disguise
Kubernetes releases three new versions every year. This rapid release cycle can be difficult to keep up with, especially for organizations without dedicated DevOps teams. Once a cluster is out of its standard support window, typically 12 to 14 months, it enters the extended support phase, and this is where the costs start to mount.
For example, if you're running Kubernetes clusters on Amazon's Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS), you pay 10 cents per hour per cluster while it's within the standard support phase. However, when the cluster enters extended support, this cost skyrockets to 60 cents per hour(4). This may not seem like much at first glance, but if you’re running multiple clusters, the cost can add up very quickly. For instance, running ten clusters in extended support could cost you thousands of dollars each month.
This financial burden encourages organizations to keep their Kubernetes clusters updated to avoid these extra charges. However, upgrading a Kubernetes cluster is far from simple. Each version upgrade requires rigorous testing to ensure compatibility with your applications. You can’t just jump from version 1.18 to 1.21, for example—you must go through each intermediate version step by step(4). This process is both time-consuming and resource-intensive.
Operational Overhead: Keeping Up with Upgrades
Upgrading Kubernetes is not just a matter of clicking a button and walking away. It’s an involved process that requires a lot of testing and manpower. Kubernetes upgrades often introduce new APIs and deprecate old ones, meaning that you must ensure your applications remain compatible with the new versions. This is not something that happens overnight; it involves careful planning and execution.
Larger organizations may have the resources to manage these upgrades, but smaller companies might find the process daunting. Even for businesses with DevOps teams, keeping up with Kubernetes releases can detract from other important tasks, such as developing new features or scaling infrastructure.
Moreover, failing to keep up with upgrades can result in technical debt, which only grows as time goes on. If you wait too long to upgrade your Kubernetes clusters, the complexity and cost of doing so increases, making it even more challenging to maintain a stable infrastructure. In some cases, organizations may need to reallocate significant resources just to handle upgrades, slowing down other operations(4).
Do You Even Need Kubernetes?
Before you invest heavily in Kubernetes, it’s important to ask yourself: Do you really need it? Kubernetes is powerful and flexible, but it comes with significant overhead. In many cases, businesses adopt Kubernetes because it’s the "hot" technology, without fully considering whether it’s necessary for their specific use case.
For enterprises with large-scale, complex applications, Kubernetes makes sense. It offers the scalability and features needed to support multiple teams and applications. But for smaller companies or those that don’t need Kubernetes’ full suite of features, alternatives such as Amazon ECS (Elastic Container Service) or Fargate might be more appropriate. These services are less complex to manage, with fewer updates and a much simpler architecture(4).
Running ECS, for instance, can feel like a "no-brainer" in some cases, particularly when the labor required to maintain Kubernetes is factored in. Kubernetes often necessitates a dedicated team of platform engineers to manage the deployment, support, and upgrading of the clusters(4). For companies that are just looking to run simple containerized applications, ECS or even Docker may offer all the features they need with a fraction of the overhead.
The Hidden Labor Costs
One of the biggest costs of running Kubernetes is not the monetary expense but the labor involved in keeping it running smoothly. While Kubernetes automates a lot of processes, such as scaling and scheduling, it also adds complexity. Managing clusters, performing upgrades, and ensuring compatibility with new Kubernetes versions are all labor-intensive tasks.
For example, upgrading a cluster isn’t something you do lightly. You need to ensure that each component—such as APIs, controllers, and your applications—remains compatible with the new version. This often involves dedicating entire teams just to manage Kubernetes clusters(4)(4). For a small company, this is a significant investment that may not make sense, especially if simpler alternatives are available.
Furthermore, Kubernetes clusters are notorious for their steep learning curve. For an organization to fully harness Kubernetes’ power, the team needs to be trained extensively. This can involve additional time and money, detracting from other business-critical tasks.
Alternatives: Do You Need All the Bells and Whistles?
Kubernetes offers many advanced features, such as custom controllers and operators, which allow for complex operations. However, the question remains: do you need them? Many companies are realizing that they don’t need all the bells and whistles that Kubernetes provides(4).
If your primary goal is to run and scale containers, there are simpler and more cost-effective alternatives. ECS, for example, integrates smoothly with the AWS ecosystem, requiring far less effort to maintain. It may lack some of Kubernetes’ advanced features, but for many companies, these features are overkill. What ECS does offer is a stable, less labor-intensive platform that still allows for scaling and management of containers.
Final Thoughts: Weighing the Costs
Kubernetes is a powerful tool, but it’s not the right solution for every business. The hidden costs, both in terms of money and labor, can be significant. If your company doesn’t need Kubernetes’ full range of features, it’s worth considering alternatives such as ECS or Fargate. These platforms offer simpler, more cost-effective ways to manage containers without the ongoing complexity of Kubernetes upgrades.
Before adopting Kubernetes, take the time to assess your actual needs. Can your applications run just as well on a simpler platform? Do you have the resources to manage Kubernetes clusters and keep up with its release cycle? Answering these questions will help you make an informed decision, potentially saving your company time, money, and headaches in the long run.
