New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

thoughts about incorporating kubernetes? #3330

jokeyrhyme opened this Issue Aug 25, 2016 · 3 comments


None yet
4 participants

jokeyrhyme commented Aug 25, 2016

I've been watching the open-source PaaS / CaaS space for a while now, and I've noticed that OpenShift and Deis (and probably others) have restructured themselves around Kubernetes:

Kubernetes is not yet self-hosting, so its control plane is not yet running as highly-available / self-managed containers. I believe Flynn is self-hosting currently, so it probably makes sense to wait for this upstream work to be completed over the next few Kubernetes releases:

What other benefits and concerns would there be here?

@lmars lmars added the kind/question label Aug 25, 2016


This comment has been minimized.


titanous commented Aug 25, 2016

Flynn predates Kubernetes so it wasn’t a choice when we were starting out. As you point out, Kubernetes isn’t yet self hosting which disqualifies it for us currently. We continue to monitor advancements in a number of technologies, including Kubernetes, to see if they would make a good addition to Flynn.

The two primary concerns we have about incorporating other technologies into Flynn are the effort required to initially incorporate them as well as their future direction. Most of Flynn’s components were either created exclusively for Flynn, have been forked, or are vendored.

As a result we have a huge amount of control over how they work and relate to other Flynn components. This end-to-end model lets us deliver features faster and more reliably than if we relied on a number of other vendors to maintain components. Because Flynn would be only one among many users of a component like Kubernetes, our voice would carry far less weight in conversations about architectural and API design and feature prioritization and roadmap. That can mean we have to wait for or work around features, which can outweigh the benefits of adopting existing technology.

@titanous titanous closed this Aug 25, 2016


This comment has been minimized.

jokeyrhyme commented Aug 25, 2016

Thanks. That all makes sense.


This comment has been minimized.

smolinari commented Jan 1, 2017

The open questions in my mind are,

  1. Does Flynn already offer the features available in Kubernetes?
  2. If only partially, which features does Flynn offer?
  3. Which ones are missing?

Deis and Flynn seem to be the most "approachable" OSS PaaS solutions. However, being Deis is based on Kubernetes makes it awfully attractive for a Docker based microservices system. Flynn's attractiveness lies in its simplicity, yet still being quite powerful. It's a tough call to make not knowing the deeper details (which I am working on).


Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment