Kubernetes on Hetzner: cutting my infra bill by 75%

// Taking another slant at the discussion: Why kubernetes?

Thank you for sharing your experience. I also have my 3 personal servers with Hetzner, plus a couple VM instances in Scaleways (French outfit).

Disclaimer: I’m a Googler, was SRE for ~10 years for GMail, identity, social, apps (gsuites nowadays) and more, managed hundreds of jobs in Borg, one of the 3 founders of the current dev+devops internal platform (and I focused on the releases,prod,capacity side of the platform), dabbled in K8s on my personal time. My opinions, not Google’s.

So, my question is: given the significant complexity that K8s brings (I don’t think anyone disputes this) why are people using it outside medium-large environments? There are simpler and yet flexible & effective job schedulers that are way easier to manage. Nomad is an example.

Unless you have a LOT of machines to manage, with many jobs (I’d say +250) to manage, K8s complexity, brittleness and overhead are not justifiable, IMO.

The emergence of tools like Terraform and the many other management layers in top of K8s that try to make it easier but just introduce more complexity and their own abstractions are in itself a sign of that inherent complexity.

I would say that only a few companies in the world need that level of complexity. And then they will need it, for sure. But, for most is like buying a Formula 1 to commute in a city.

One other aspect that I also noticed is that technical teams tend to carry on the mess they had in their previous “legacy” environment and just replicate in K8s, instead of trying to do an architectural design of the whole system needs. And K8s model enables that kind of mess: a “bucket of things”.

Those two things combined, mean that nowadays every company has soaring cloud costs, are running things they know nothing about but are afraid to touch in case of breaking something. And an outage is more career harming than a high bill that Finance will deal with it later, so why risk it, right? A whole new IT area has been coined now to deal with this: FinOps :facepalm:

I’m just puzzled by the whole situation, tbh.

We've [1] been using Hetzner's dedicated servers to provide Kubernetes clusters to our clients for a few years now. The performance is certainly excellent, we typically see request times half. And because the hardware is cheaper we can provide dedicated DevOps engineering time to each client. There are some caveats though:

1) A staging cluster for testing updates is really a must. YOLO-ing prod updates on a Sunday is no one's idea of fun.

2) Application level replication is king, followed by block-level replication (we use OpenEBS/Mayastor). After going through all the Postgres operators we found StackGres to (currently) be the best.

3) The Ansible playbooks are your assets. Once you have them down and well-commented for a given service then re-deploying that service in other cases (or again in the future) becomes straightforward.

4) If you can I'd recommend a dedicated 10G network to connect your servers. 1G just isn't quite enough when it comes to the combined load of prod traffic, plus image pulls, plus inter-service traffic. This also gives a 10x latency improvement over AWS intra-az.

5) If you want network redundancy you can create a 1G vSwitch (VLAN) on the 1G ports for internal use. Give each server a loopback IP, then use BGP to distribute routes (bird).

6) MinIO clusters (via the operator) are not that tricky to operate as long as you follow the well trodden path. This provides you with local high-bandwidth, low-latency object storage.

7) The initial investment to do this does take time. I'd put it at 2-4 months of undistracted skilled engineering time.

8) You can still push ancillary/annoying tasks off onto cloud providers (personally I'm a fan of CloudFlare for HTTP load balancing).

[1]: https://lithus.eu

I have experience running Kubernetes clusters on Hetzner dedicated servers, as well as working with a range of fully or highly managed services like Aurora, S3, and ECS Fargate.

From my experience, the cloud bill on Hetzner can sometimes be as low as 20% of an equivalent AWS bill. However, this cost advantage comes with significant trade-offs.

On Kubernetes with Hetzner, we managed a Ceph cluster using NVMe storage, MariaDB operators, Cilium for networking, and ArgoCD for deploying Helm charts. We had to handle Kubernetes cluster updates ourselves, which included facing a complete cluster failure at one point. We also encountered various bugs in both Kubernetes and Ceph, many of which were documented in GitHub issues and Ceph trackers. The list of tasks to manage and monitor was endless. Depending on the number of workloads and the overall complexity of the environment, maintaining such a setup can quickly become a full-time job for a DevOps team.

In contrast, using AWS or other major cloud providers allows for a more hands-off setup. With managed services, maintenance often requires significantly less effort, reducing the operational burden on your team.

In essence, with AWS, your DevOps workload is reduced by a significant factor, while on Hetzner, your cloud bill is significantly lower.

Determining which option is more cost-effective requires a thorough TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) analysis. While Hetzner may seem cheaper upfront, the additional hours required for DevOps work can offset those savings.

I work for a consultancy company that helps companies building and securing infrastructure. We have a lot of customers running Kubernetes at low-cost providers (like Hetzner), more local middle-tier and top-three (AWS, GCP, Azure). We also have some governmental, financial and medical companies that can not or will not run in public clouds, so they usually host on-prem.

If Hetzner has an issue or glitch once a month, the middle-tier providers have one every 2-3 months, and a place like AWS maybe every 5-6 months. However, prices also follow that observation, so you have to carefully consider on a case-by-case basis whether adding some extra machines and backup and failure scenarios is a better deal.

The major benefit by using basic hosting services is that their pricing is a lot more predictable; you pay for machines and scale as you go. Once you get hooked into all the extra services a provider like AWS provides, you might get some unexpectedly high bills and moving away might be a lot harder. For smaller companies, don't make short-sighted decisions that threaten your ability to survive long-term by choosing the easy solution or "free credits" scheme early on.

There is no right answer here, just trade-offs.

I used to do my own car maintenance, because I wanted to save money, and it was fun. It turned out it was more complex than I thought, things slowly fell apart or broke. I spent a good deal of time "re-fixing" things. Spent probably thousands on tools over the years, partly replacing the cheap stuff that broke or rusted quickly. My cars were often up on blocks. But I learned a lot of great lessons. The biggest one? Some things are not worth DIYing; pay a mechanic or lease your car, especially if you depend on it for your livelihood.

Even something as simple as an oil change, really isn't worth doing yourself. First you buy the tools (oil drip pan, filter wrench, funnel, creeper). Then you set aside the time to use them, find your dingy work clothes. You go to the store and buy new oil and a filter. You go home and change the oil. Then that day or another day you go to a store that will take your used oil. Versus 20 minutes at an auto mechanic, for about $15 more than the cost of the oil and filter.

Kubernetes is an entire car (and a complex one). It's really not worth doing the maintenance yourself, I promise you. Unless you're just doing it for fun.