A Comparison of Public Cloud Managed Kubernetes Services

In this article, I’ll look to provide some comparisons of public cloud vendors when deciding where to run Kubernetes. Obviously, this assumes that you’ve already decided that Kubernetes is the way to go.
It’s important to understand the main features and capabilities of the main cloud providers and present what I think are some crystal clear criteria for choosing your target platform.

DIY or managed service?
Before I get into public cloud vendors its important to highlight that Kubernetes is so modular, flexible, and extensible that it can be deployed on-prem, or in a third-party data center, in any of the popular cloud providers and even across multiple cloud providers. With a varying array of choices, what should you do for your business and your peace of mind?
The answer, of course, is “it depends.”
Should you run your Kubernetes systems on-prem or in third-party data centers. You may have already invested a lot of time, money, and training in your bespoke infrastructure. The challenges of DIY Kubernetes infrastructure become more and more burdensome as you need to invest time and operational cycles in standing up and ongoing daily management of the environment.

Or should you run your Kubernetes system on one of the cloud providers? You may want to benefit from the goodness of Kubernetes without the headache of having to manage it and keep it in tip-top form with upgrades and security patching.

What’s also important to note is that you’ll need to be already containerized — if you’re already there then great, taking that monolithic application to a brave new world is going to be a challenge but it does bring its benefits as you drive your business forward.

Choosing to run Kubernetes managed by your cloud provider is probably a no-brainer. You already run workloads in the cloud, right? Kubernetes gives you the opportunity to replace a lot of layers of management, monitoring, and security you may have to build and more importantly have the skillset to integrate with your processes and maintain yourself.

There are actually quite a few cloud providers that support Kubernetes and I’ll focus here on the Big Three: Google’s GKE, Microsoft AKS, and Amazon’s EKS and provide a view on what IONOS Enterprise Cloud is offering also.

Google GKE (Google Kubernetes Engine)
Kubernetes, if you didn’t know already, came from Google. GKE is the managed offering of Kubernetes by Google. Google SREs will manage the control plane of Kubernetes for you and you get auto-upgrades. Since Google has so much influence on Kubernetes and it used it as the container orchestration solution of the Google cloud platform from day one, it would be really weird if it didn’t have the best integration.

GKE may be the most up to date on releases. On GKE, you don’t have to pay for the Kubernetes control plane which is important to bear in mind if controlling costs is important to your business, which I assume would be. So with Google, you just pay for the worker nodes. Google also can provide GCR (Goole Container Registry), integrated central logging and monitoring via Stackdriver Logging and Stackdriver Monitoring all be it very pricey, and if you’re interested in even tighter integration with your CI/CD pipeline you can use Google Code Build which will add even more costs, which is all great but as with most PaaS offerings once you get locked in you’re locked in, so the main thing to keep in mind is that flexibility is key with Kubernetes, most ancillary services can be bolted on to your hosted servers so you’re not stove-piped into using the vendors tools if you don’t want to be.

GKE takes advantage of general-purpose Kubernetes concepts like Service and Ingress for fine-grained control over load balancing. If your Kubernetes service is of type LoadBalancer, GKE will expose it to the world via a plain L4 (TCP) load balancer. However, if you create an Ingres object in front of your service then GKE will create an L7 load balancer capable of doing SSL termination for you and even allow gRPC traffic if you annotate it correctly, of course setting up your own Ingress Controller is also possible should the need arise.

Microsoft Azure AKS (Azure Kubernetes Service)
Microsoft Azure originally had a solution called ACS that supported Apache Mesos, Kubernetes, and Docker Swarm. But, in 2017 it introduced AKS as a dedicated Kubernetes hosting service.

AKS is very similar to GKE. It also managed a Kubernetes cluster for you free of charge. Microsoft invested a lot in Kubernetes in general and AKS in particular. There is strong integration with Active Directory for authentication and authorization, integrated monitoring and logging, and Azure storage. You also get built-in container registry, networking, and GPU-enabled nodes.
One of the most interesting features of AKS is its usage of the virtual-kublet project to integrate with ACI (Azure Container Instances). The ACI takes away the need to provision nodes for your cluster.

Setting up a cluster on AKS takes a long time (20 minutes on average) and the startup time has high volatility (more than an hour on rare occasions). The developer experience is relatively poor. You need some combination of a web UI (Azure Portal Manager), PowerShell, and plain CLI to provision and set everything up.

Amazon AWS EKS (Elastic Kubernetes Service)
Amazon was a little late to the Kubernetes scene. It always had its own ECS (Elastic Container Service) container orchestration platform. But, customer demand was for Kubernetes was overwhelming. Many organizations ran their Kubernetes clusters on EC2 using Kops or similar eventually AWS decided to provide proper support with official integrations. EKS today integrates with IAM for identity management, AWS load balancers, networking, and various storage options.

AWS has promised integration with Fargate (similar to AKS + ACI). This will eliminate the need to provision worker nodes and potentially let Kubernetes automatically scale up and down for a truly elastic experience.
Note that on EKS you have to pay for the managed control plane. If you just want to play around and experiment with Kubernetes or have lots of small clusters that might be a limiting factor.

As far as performance goes EKS takes 10–15 minutes to start a cluster. EKS is probably not the simplest to set up as with AKS you’re moving between the management consoles, IAM and CLI to get the cluster up and running, it’s probably the most complex setup out of all the three cloud vendors so in reality, it could take a little under an hour from the initial deployment to getting the cluster up and running.

IONOS Enterprise Cloud
So what about the other vendors, well there are quite a few from the likes of Oracle, IBM and Digital Ocean there is also IONOS Enterprise Cloud. If I was to compare how we IONOS fared against the top three then I would say there is some catch up to make with ancillary PaaS services, but for creating a cluster and providing worker nodes to the cluster then IONOS does this with ease and simplicity actually much better than the competition. IONOS has UI integration with the data center designer which is missing from the top three providers, it’s such a simple process to get up and running that clusters can be ready to use in under 15 minutes.

Having the ability to choose the amount of CPU and RAM is a huge deal, you’re not forced into certain sizes for your worker nodes, adding and removing worker nodes is simple too, just remember to drain your nodes before you remove them. IONOS also has full API ingratiation, in fact, a cluster and worker nodes can be up and running with four API calls. With IONOS you get dedicated CPU and RAM resources so performance is a given. IONOS also brings GDPR compliant cloud infrastructure without having to worry about the US Cloud Act which should be top of your list for cloud service requirements.

There are also services such as persistence volumes in the shape of HDD and SSD storage and load balancer services just like the other vendors, with services on their roadmap to come, also as it’s vanilla Kubernetes, it’s easy to add things like Istio, Prometheus, Grafana and Ingress load balancers too. I’ve not even touched on cost yet but compared to the other vendors IONOS comes under the competition reserved instance pricing too, making it very attractable. Here are some rough figures though to help you determine costs when choosing a Kubernetes platform. This monthly cost comparison assumes that you have 3 master nodes, 15 worker nodes, and each node has 4 vCPU and 16GB of RAM.

AWS Google Cloud Platform Microsoft Azure IONOS
£0.18 per hour £0.18 per hour £0.17 per hour £0.15 per hour
18 Nodes (3 Control) 15 Nodes (Free Control Plane) 15 Nodes (Free Control Plane) 15 Nodes (Free Control Plane)
£2332 Compute Cost £2194 Compute Cost £1836 Compute Cost £1620 Compute Cost
M5 xLarge Instance type: n1-standard-4 D4 v3 4 vcpu 16gb 4 vCPU (2 Dedicated CPU Cores)  16Gb Ram

Kubernetes itself is platform agnostic. In theory, you can easily switch from any cloud platform to another as well as run on your own infrastructure. In practice, when you choose a platform provider you often want to utilize and benefit from their specific services that will require some work to migrate to a different provider or on-prem.

There are a number of container orchestration tools out there with the likes of Rancher, Swarm etc. it looks like Kubernetes has won the container orchestration wars. The big question for you is where you should run it. Usually, the answer is simple. If you’re already running on one of the cloud providers then check to ensure that your vendor is the right choice, this is where multi-cloud is giving you benefit allowing you to leverage the best the cloud has to offer so you can run your Kubernetes cluster with confidence.

Please follow and like us:

Avoiding Cloud Vendor Lock-in

Always ask before entering into any contract, “How do I get my data out in the future if I need or want to?”

Cloud vendor lock-in is typically a situation which a customer using a product or service cannot easily transition to a competitor. Lock-ins are usually the result of proprietary technologies that are incompatible with those of its competitors and it can also be caused by inefficient processes or constraints among other things.  I’ve seen many customers come up against this in the past with traditional data centers where their storage vendor or hyper-visor solutions locked those customers into fixed solutions which inhibit the customer to be agile in moving to new technologies. The cloud albeit public or private can be no different when it comes to using lock-in techniques for retaining its user base.

Fear of Lock-in

Cloud lock-in is often cited as the major obstacle to cloud service adoption. there are a number of reasons why a company may look to migrate to the cloud, most often its all about reducing the physical infrastructure that they have in their data centers, cloud gives them the agility their look for, additionally reducing not only the CAPEX but also the OPEX required for the ongoing maintenance of the systems.

There’s also the question of how they should migrate to the cloud , the complexities of the migration process may mean that the customer stays with their provider which could also mean there’s a compromise in that their current provider doesn’t meet all their needs and limits the agility of their IT and value it provides to the business. 

In some cases during the migration to another provider it may be required to move the data and services back to the original on-premises location which in itself may be an issue as the original architecture may no longer be available or the data center is now reduced in resource availability and prohibits such an action. Further more the data may of been changed to allow its operation on a particular cloud vendors platform and would need to be altered again to run on an alternative cloud platform. 

Cloud vendor lock-in

Its only natural that cloud vendors want to lock you in after all they’re there to make money and need you to stay with them, they work at ways to keep you using their services and try to ensure that migrations are not an easy task. their customers often don’t know the impact until they try to migrate and can be devastating when it happens. Due to these challenges migration services from third party vendors are becoming a common occurrence and turning into lucrative business.

Taking the leap

Most companies I’ve talked to recently have similar experiences when looking to migrate from their current cloud vendors, the majority were unhappy with the perceived costs of using cloud infrastructure after all cloud was suppose to be cheap but the ROI was taking longer than first anticipated. The cloud vendors support services were a close second due to the lack of any personal experience offered from their vendor, i guess there’s only a number of times that “Take a look at this FAQ” is going to help.

One of the other major problem with cloud vendors is that you typically need to over allocate already inflated resources to the services you are providing as cloud resources are most of the time shared with other users of their services. its a bit like a house share, the last thing you need is someone hogging the bathroom.

PaaS services were also another reason, whilst PaaS is great in reducing the OPEX of the underlying infrastructure and application or database services it does start to get expensive with large number of API gateway calls which if unplanned for can be a bit of a surprise when you get your invoice, add to that one clouds PaaS may not be inter-operable with another so some type of data cleaning is going to be needed.

GDPR (there I’ve said it) was another reason which raised its head especially if the vendor was US based then the C.L.O.U.D. Act comes into effect.


If your using a US based provider then your data is no longer private as is can be handed over to the US government if they deem any suspect need to, oh and hosting in a different region outside of the US doesn’t help either so using a Irish region will not allow you to escape the act. The last time I check the big 3 public clouds are all US owned but if you believe that this may not effect you then you don’t need to look too far to see it in action, I’m sure we all remember Cambridge Analytica and the Facebook debacle that company had to hand over its data and now no longer exists! Taking up a hybrid cloud approach and using a dedicated European provider with multiple region support will help avoid this.   

One company that I spoke to had a concerning case in that their cloud vendor had no export facility for the data and had challenges on how to cleanly extract the data, this challenge was compounded even more as the tax man also called in an audit on their accounts during the migration phase and had to take a hit on a penalty as the accounts were not available at the time of the audit. The whole process was painful and time consuming and they surely learnt a lot from the experience.

And the moral of the story is …..

Ask the important questions, “How is the data securely stored?”, “Who has access to my data”, “How is my data protected?”, “Do I need to modify my data so the cloud vendor can store it?” and most importantly “How do I get my data out in the future if I need and want to?” In most cases getting your data out is going to cost you but knowing that’s its possible is half the battle. if your new provider has tools to make it easier for you then that’s even better.

And lastly

Be aware of the existence of the CLOUD Act and its potential implications for your business.
Adopt a hybrid cloud strategy, which clearly defines which data can be stored in public cloud services, and what should be stored in data centers operated by European managed service operators.
If you have large amounts of customer data, and would like to alert them if you do get a request to hand over personal data under the CLOUD Act, you might want to consider adding a warrant canary clause on your website.

Please follow and like us:

Comparing Public Cloud Performance – Part One – Microsoft Azure

I’ve been working with the major cloud vendors for some years now and for me performance has always been a key factor when choosing the right platform for Infrastructure-as-a-Service, I’ve always struggled in finding the right balance of cost vs configuration when choosing the right platforms and have created this 3 part blog to highlight some of the differences I’ve seen between Azure, AWS and Google Cloud.
I’ve just started a new role as Cloud Architect for 1&1 IONOS, working in the Enterprise Cloud division, and one of the main factors in coming here was the technology stack and the surrounding network settings and some of the claims that it makes especially with performance and simplicity. This blog will highlight those performance claims and also the cost-benefit that choosing the right cloud provider will be for you.
For the tests I’ve kept it simple, I will be using small instances that will host eventually host microservices with Docker so cost will be one variable but performance is another, I will be creating an instance with 1 vCPU and 2Gb RAM, this system will be a baseline for testing, I will use Novabench (novabench.com) for some basic CPU and RAM performance modelling. There are so many tools out there but I find this one real quick and simple to test against some key attributes, I will also use the same tool for all the cloud vendors instances so this should show unbiased results too.
Let’s start by looking at Azure and for this I’ve selected the A1_v2 size as this consistent with other instances on the clouds I will be testing, The CPU used is an Intel Haswell E5-2673 v3 and the price for this including windows server licensing and support costs comes out at £62.20 per month

2018-11-20_13-59-06Azure Pricing calculator for A1_v2

For IONOS Enterprise Cloud I’ve also selected a similar spec and have used the Intel Haswell E5-2660 v3 based chip for the OS as this will be very close to the A1_v2 instance in Azure, Like Azure I’ve also included the Windows Server license cost in the subscription along with 24/7 support which is actually free. The monthly cost for this server is £50.96 so comparing costs of using IONOS Enterprise Cloud there would be a saving of £134.88 over the year, a saving is a saving, so on paper the costs look good so far.

2018-11-20_14-00-37IONOS Enterprise Cloud Pricing for A1_v2 equivalent

Now, what about performance tests between the two?  First I wanted to see how the external and internal internet connectivity was performing, so no big surprise, IONOS way outperformed Azure by a factor of 3, which is to be expected given the infrastructure back end design running on InfiniBand and the datacentre interconnects.

2018-11-22_10-07-47Azure Speedtest performance rating

2018-11-22_10-40-14IONOS Enterprise Cloud Speedtest performance rating

Next, the focus turned to CPU, RAM and disk performance for this I ran the Novabench performance utility and performed tests on both servers, the tests did throw up some major differences between the two. Let’s take a look at Azure first

2018-11-22_10-40-59Azure A1_v2 Instance Novabench Results

The Azure instance had a low score for its CPU benchmark which makes sense as the CPU is a shared resource with other instances being hosted on that Hyper-V cluster node within the Azure cloud, the RAM score was also low with a throughput of 3929 MB/s, but what was noticeable was that the disk read performance was good with a throughput of 163 MB/s but write speeds were a complete polar opposite.
The IONOS Enterprise cloud eclipsed the metrics of the Azure instance and really showed off the advantage of having dedicated CPU and memory resources for the instance

2018-11-20_12-37-19IONOS Instance Novabench result

The CPU performance was 385% that of the CPU in Azure and for Azure to achieve a similar score an additional 3 CPUs would have to be added to maintain the same CPU score. The RAM speed also was way beyond that of Azure and achieved 19318 MB/s a factor of 3 times faster, the disk read & write performance both outperformed Azure, it did maintain an equal throughput for both write and read speeds with writes outperforming by 18 times that of Azure. Just a note here that I used a standard HDD as the storage medium and could have used an SSD instead which would have increased the performance even more.
Finally, I configured another instance in IONOS Enterprise Cloud using an AMD Opteron 62xx 2.8Ghz processor to see it that could match the Intel-based Azure instance and for much of the benchmark scores it was comparable to the Azure instance, even better the cost of the instance was £31.52 a month giving a saving £368.16 over the year. It should be mentioned that IONOS Enterprise Clouds let you configure cores and storage at will in the most granular way possible: core by core and Gigabyte by Gigabyte.

2018-11-20_15-55-43IONOS AMD Instance Novabench result

For Azure to catch up to similar performance of that of IONOS Enterprise Cloud the Azure instance would need to be reconfigured to a A4_v2 size this is 4 times the resources of the IONOS Instance which would increase the monthly cost to £182.44 which would equate to £2210.64 for the year of which £1599.12 would be for the cost of an equal performance instance of that of the IONOS instance.

2018-11-22_10-12-03Azure A4_v2 Instance Novabench Results

Can you really justify that type of expense of spending an additional £1600 per year for the same performance? IONOS Enterprise Cloud employs KVM based virtualisation making extensive use of hardware virtualisation and maps the CPU power of a real core to a vCPU and provides dedicated memory so it is surely the way to go.
Get your free 30 day no obligation trial at https://www.ionos.co.uk/pro/enterprise-cloud/

Please follow and like us: