k3s VS multi-tenancy

In this demo, we will be using k3d a lightweight wrapper to run k3s (Rancher Lab’s minimal Kubernetes distribution) in docker, to create 4 separate clusters named control-plane, cluster-1, cluster-2, and cluster-3 respectively.

To run the demo locally, we recommend k3d a lightweight wrapper to run k3s (Rancher Lab’s minimal Kubernetes distribution) in docker.

I've been messing around with k8s (k3s) lately, and got to the "issue" of downtime/inconsistencies caused by one of multiple workers being down, who had pods running on them. I found a couple useful parameters here that helped me reduce the time needed to redeploy the old pods on other nodes, as well as stop sending requests to the NotReady node. But that got me thinking, how long should k8s wait before doing these things? Or is there perhaps a better option for increasing avaliability?

Local Kubernetes clusters are clusters that are running on the individual computer of the developer. There are many tools that provide such an environment, such as Minikube, microk8s, k3s, or kind. While they are not all the same, their use as a development environment is quite comparable.

Since the developer is the only one who has to access this cluster for development, local clusters can be a feasible solution for this purpose. Over time, several solutions have emerged that are particularly made for running Kubernetes in local environments. The most important ones are Kubernetes in Docker (kind), MicroK8s, minikube and k3s. For a comparison of these local Kubernetes options, you can look at this post.

With local Kubernetes environments such as minikube or k3s, developers can create their own Kubernetes clusters on their local computers. This often leads to developers struggling with the management and setup of these pared-down Kubernetes technologies that are also not completely realistic compared to “real-world”, cloud-based environments. The upside of this approach is that the developers have full control over their environment and can independently create it whenever they need it.

K3d - a lightweight wrapper to run k3s in docker.

Alternatives: The concept of virtual clusters is rather new, so only few solutions for it exist. However, there are also open-source proof-of-concepts for a virtual cluster technology, such as k3v or the project from the Kubernetes multi-tenancy SIG.

This seems like a pretty good fit for HNC. You can restrict users to only create subnamespaces, and then ensure that the configmaps in the parent namespaces get propagated to the children.

Virtual Kubernetes clusters are still a very new topic, but they are already available today. The multi-tenancy working group has presented an experimental solution in this area. k3v by Darren Shepherd is another proof of concept implementation in the open-source community.

In a way this reminds me of Kubernetes Virtual Clusters. Each virtual cluster has its own tenant control plane, namespaces. Multiple virtual clusters exist in a super cluster.

https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/multi-tenancy/tree/master...

As a side note, hierarchical namespaces are coming, which makes things even more flexible: https://github.com/kubernetes-sigs/multi-tenancy/tree/master/incubator/hnc