I think that's probably the most common opinion out there, and for a reason: You can't go wrong with the Kubernetes approach.
A quick question: If you were to have 5 small to medium projects, would you rather have 5 Docker Compose projects scaled vertically on separate servers or manage all 5 projects on a single cluster? (Knowing that the cluster would technically use the same docker-compose.yml file syntax as each Docker Compose project and you could scale each independently)
I guess it's a matter of taste because I like experimenting with different small projects and having a single place where their SSL and CI/CD config is managed is my preferred approach.
First time I've seen this image. Quite intersting, going on my bookmarks... You never know lol thanks for that ;)
Of course, it's a little too bold to claim there are wrong answers here, I believe more in being different approaches instead. People will end up feeling more comfortable with some better than others. As long as you're being productive I guess it's a success on my book.
I know VPS are cheap (I claimed them being cheap in the article) but it's also good to save on them exactly because they are cheap ($10/month will save you $120/year). We can easily end up with a similar "CPUs are more performant than 10y ago, therefore we can use/make less performant code and end up with the same result" dilemma
Thanks! :)
I think that's probably the most common opinion out there, and for a reason: You can't go wrong with the Kubernetes approach.
A quick question: If you were to have 5 small to medium projects, would you rather have 5 Docker Compose projects scaled vertically on separate servers or manage all 5 projects on a single cluster? (Knowing that the cluster would technically use the same docker-compose.yml file syntax as each Docker Compose project and you could scale each independently)
I guess it's a matter of taste because I like experimenting with different small projects and having a single place where their SSL and CI/CD config is managed is my preferred approach.
My personal taste is to have 5 separate hosts. VPS are cheap and if I screw up one host, others stay unaffected (happen to me all the time haha).
Regarding SSL, you right it can take some time! Images like hub.docker.com/r/gordonchan/auto-l... make it easier to configure it once for all.
First time I've seen this image. Quite intersting, going on my bookmarks... You never know lol thanks for that ;)
Of course, it's a little too bold to claim there are wrong answers here, I believe more in being different approaches instead. People will end up feeling more comfortable with some better than others. As long as you're being productive I guess it's a success on my book.
I know VPS are cheap (I claimed them being cheap in the article) but it's also good to save on them exactly because they are cheap ($10/month will save you $120/year). We can easily end up with a similar "CPUs are more performant than 10y ago, therefore we can use/make less performant code and end up with the same result" dilemma
If you're going to manage your own cluster I agree 100% Swarm is a good choice :)