Take a look at all the configs and moving parts checked in this very repo that are needed to run a self-hosted instance.
Yes, it is somewhat nicely abstracted away, but that doesn't change the fact that in the kube directory alone [1] there are 10 subfolders with even more config files.
> Yes, it is somewhat nicely abstracted away, but that doesn't change the fact that in the kube directory alone [1] there are 10 subfolders with even more config files.
mongodb supporting service
minio supporting service
elastic supporting service
account their service
workspace their service
front their service
collaborator their service
transactor their service
rekoni their service
I still would opt for something simpler than that and developing all of the above services would keep multiple teams busy, but the Compose format is actually nice when you want to easily understand what you're looking at.
As someone that develops native Kubernetes platforms: Providing the raw resources / manifests is almost the worst way of providing a user install.
That works great as long as you never have a breaking change in your manifests or any kind of more complex upgrade.
Which brings me back to the initial question: Is this complexity and the external dependencies really needed?
For a decently decomposed, highly scalable microservice architecture, maybe.
For an Open Source (likely) single tenant management platform? Unlikely.
It highlights the problem of clashing requirements of different target user groups.
We can also take a look at the linux kernel that powers the docker instances and faint in terror.
These “moving parts” are implementation details which (iiuc) require no maintenance apart from backing up via some obvious solutions. Didn’t they make docker to stop worrying about exactly this?
And you don’t need multiple roles, specialists or competences for that, it’s a one-time task for a single sysop who can google and read man. These management-spoiled ideas will hire one guy for every explicitly named thing. Tell them you’re using echo and printf and they rush to search for an output-ops team.
These moving parts require active understanding and maintenance, as they will change on each and every upgrade, which also requires manual upgrade steps and potential debugging on breaking changes.
OCI images let you worry less about dependencies, but what they don't eliminate is debugging and/or upgrading k8s configuration manifests (which we are looking at here).
> We can also take a look at the linux kernel that powers the docker instances and faint in terror.
Sure, and computers are rocks powered by lightning - very, very frighting. That doesn't invalidate criticism about the usability and design of this very product my friend.
These moving parts require active understanding and maintenance, as they will change on each and every upgrade, which also requires manual upgrade steps and potential debugging on breaking changes
Maybe they won’t change or migrations will be backwards-compatible. We don’t know that in general. Pretty sure all the software installed on my PC uses numerous databases. But somehow I never upgraded them manually. I find the root position overdefensive at best.
If it were a specific criticism, fine. But it uses lots of assumptions as far as I can tell, cause it references no mds, configs, migrations, etc. It only projects a general idea about issues someone had at their org in some situation. This whole “moving parts” idiom is management speak. You either see a specific problem with a specific setup, or have to look inside to see it. Everything else is fortune telling.
https://github.com/hcengineering/huly-selfhost