And CNI problems are extremely normal. Pretty much anyone that didn't just use weavenet and called it a day has had to spend quiet a bit of time to figure it out. If you already know networking by heart it's obviously going to be easier, but few devs do.
You definitely can run Kubernetes without running Ceph or any storage system, and you already rely on a distributed storage system if you use the cloud whether you use Kubernetes or not. So I wouldn't count this as added complexity from Kubernetes.
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.
For example you'd say AWS EBS is part of Kubernetes?
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.
But would I say that your entire Linux installation and the cloud it runs on is part of Kubernetes? No.
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
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.
I see how you were asking the GP that question now
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.
Ceph is its own cluster of kettles filled with fishes
> Kubernetes is not the first thing that comes to mind when I think of "understanding where their code is running and what it's doing"...
People act like their web framework and SQL connection pooler and stuff are so simple, while Kubernetes is complex and totally inscrutable for mortals, and I don't get it. It has a couple of moving parts, but it is probably simpler overall than SystemD.