To be fair, this is not the first time we'e heard about this, https://github.com/kubernetes/ingress-nginx/issues/13002 exists since March. However I also thought that the timeline to a complete project halt would be much longer considering the prevalence of the nginx ingress controller. Might also mean that InGate is dead, since it's not mentioned in this post and doesn't seem to be close to any kind of stable release.
It's not a service shutting down though. It will still work fine for a while and it there is a critical security patch required, the community might still be able to add it.
> Let people time to move out, 6 month is not enough.
Did you actually contribute? Either by donations or code? If not, Beggars can't be choosers. You are not entitled to free maintainence for open source software you use.
Probably they have a different experience! I love using helm but I feel I got used to go templates and sub charts done right. I use it at work a lot and at home on my homelab with no issues at all: I guess is the usual tab vs spaces.
The alternatives of helm are not that interesting to me: I still have nightmare when I had to use jsonnet and kustomize just for istio, with upgrade hell.
So I am sticking to helm as it feels way straight forward when you need to change just a few things from an upstream open source project: way fewer lines to maintain and change!
Most of the time discussion derails as everyone is focusing on different aspects of the experience.
When you look into all the complaints one by one they are exceptionally acurate.
* yaml has its quirks. - check
* text templating can’t be validated for spec comformity - check
* helm has lot’s of complexity - check
* helm has dependency problems - check
* helm charts can have too many moving parts with edge cases causing deep dive in the chart - check
and many others. However proposed solutions cut short on providing the value helm brings on.
Helm is not just a templating engine to provide kubernetes manifests. It’s an application deployment and distribution ecosystem. Emphasis on the "ecosystem".
* It brings dependency management,
* It provides kubernetes configuration management.
* It provides abstraction over configuration to define applications instead of configuration.
* It provides application packaging solution.
* It provides an application package manament solution.
* There is community support with huge library of packages.
* It’s relatively easy to create or understand charts with a varied experience level. A more robust and strictly typed templating system would remove at least half of this spectrum.
* The learning curve is flat.
When you put all of these in to consideration, it’s relatively easy to understand why it’s this prominant in the kubernetes ecosystem.
I see $0.182/h/1M ts = $0.182 per 1k metrics (S.STARTER.A instance)
Also Oodle website says to "Contact for pricing beyond 5M". While VictoriaMetrics Cloud only starts at 1M (S.STARTER.A), and "Contact Us" starts at 125M active time series.
PS: time series is only one dimension, there's also storage size, retention, query/alerts frequency etc.
Oodle is a fully managed, supports high availability, so was comparing against the cluster mode of victoria metrics cloud offering.
RE: Victoria Metrics Pricing: Pls see https://victoriametrics.com/products/cloud/. The pricing that you are referring doesn't seem public, looks like you've to sign up to see that pricing. $190/month is a single node pricing. For any real use cases, you need HA and victoria metrics enterprise pricing for a cluster starts at $1300/month for 250k metrics. This translates to $5.2 per 1k metrics (5x more expensive than Oodle). For a real scale about ~2.5M or ~5M time series / hour, Oodle is around half the cost of victoria metrics.
RE: Pricing dimensions, we've simplified our pricing by indexing on a single dimension. We don't require our customers to choose machine type, RAM, CPU etc. There are other limits but for the most part, they don't matter so much in our pricing.
RE: Pricing tiers, anything more than $30-50k/year (>5M time series / hour), companies usually to talk with someone for volume discounts rather than go with online pricing.
Although I see for C.XLARGE.HA they go down to $0.56 per 1k time-series per month, just not for the smallest instance. So looks like VictoriaMetrics can be 2x less expensive than Oodle on large scale.
It's not a fair comparison. You can't compare the base tier pricing of Oodle offering with the high scale tier of victoria metrics. As you scale, volume benefits kick in just like the way they are for VM. It's a common wisdom that enterprise companies don't swipe credit cards beyond 50k/year. We request our customers to speak with us when they get to high scale tiers.
250k metrics - Oodle is 5x cheaper,
< 5M metrics - Oodle 2-3x cheaper,
beyond 5M - talk to us (our pricing will be competitive and will be better)
As suggested in earlier message, this pricing is only for single node. imo, this needs to be compared to cluster mode - any company with meaningful scale will need reliabilty and needs to run in cluster mode since you’d need your observability systems to be up and running when the rest of your systems are down.
