rancher VS Flynn

Did something happen to the Apache 2 rancher? https://github.com/rancher/rancher/blob/v2.7.5/LICENSE RKE2 is similarly Apache 2: https://github.com/rancher/rke2/blob/v1.26.7%2Brke2r1/LICENS...

I follow the 4 ABCD steps bellow, but the first pod deployment never ends. What's wrong in it? Logs and result screens are at the end. Detailed configuration can be found here.

CVE-2023-22651 is rated 9.9/10 : https://github.com/rancher/rancher/security/advisories/GHSA-6m9f-pj6w-w87g

Depends. When I came into my last company I immediately noticed the lack of reproducible environments. Brought this up a few times and was met with some resistance because "we didn't have the capacity"... Until prod went down and it took us 23 hours to bring it back up due to spaghetti terraform.

For the latest releases of rancher: https://github.com/rancher/rancher/releases When is Rancher 2.7.1 going to be released? The Rancher support matrix for 2.7.1 shows k8s v1.24.6 as the highest supported version and Azure will drop AKS v1.24 in a few months... Should this be a concern for us? What could happen if we create our cluster with Rancher for an unsupported K8s version? 1.25 for example. - Rancher 2.7.2 just got released including support for 1.25. I have however tested running unsupported versions before, unless there is major deprecations in the kubernetes API it is fine in my experience. If we move to AKS imported clusters, in case we add node pools, and upgrade the cluster, will those changes be reflected in the Rancher Platform? - Yep! If we face some issues by running an unsupported K8s version on Rancher Launched K8s clusters, is it possible to remove it from Rancher, do the stuff we need, and then import it into the platform? - Yes, however be careful and do testing before doing in prod. From top of mind: Remove cluster from rancher (if imported), if rancher created you might want to revoke ranchers SA key for the cluster first (so it can't remove it). Delete the cattle-system namespace, and any other cattle-* namespaces you don't want to keep. And do your thing. It looks like AKS is faster than Rancher regarding supported Kubernetes versions... We would like to know if Rancher will always be on track with AKS regarding the removal of K8s version support and new versions. - In my experience yes. (Been using rancher on all three clouds for a 4 years now). What are exactly the big differences between imported AKS and Rancher-launched AKS? What should we look at, and what issues can we face when using one or another? - The main difference is that rancher will not be able to upgrade the cluster for you. You will have to do that yourself.

variable "rancher" { type = object({ namespace = string version = string branch = string chart_set = list(object({ name = string value = string })) }) default = { namespace = "cattle-system" # There is a bug with destroying the cloud credentials in version 2.6.9 until 2.7.1 and will be fixed in next release 2.7.2. # See https://github.com/rancher/rancher/issues/39300 version = "2.7.0" branch = "stable" chart_set = [ { name = "replicas" value = 3 }, { name = "ingress.ingressClassName" value = "nginx-external" }, { name = "ingress.tls.source" value = "rancher" }, # There is a bug with the uninstallation of Rancher due to missing priorityClassName of rancher-webhook # The priorityClassName need to be set # See https://github.com/rancher/rancher/issues/40935 { name = "priorityClassName" value = "system-node-critical" } ] } description = "Rancher Helm chart properties." }

When I searched DuckDuckGo instead, the 12th link actually had the real answer. It's in this issue on Rancher's GitHub. Turns out the Rancher admin needs to be in all of the Keycloak groups they want to have show up in the auto-populated picklist in Rancher. Being a Keycloak admin and even creating the groups isn't good enough. Frustratingly, the "caveat" note the Rancher guy is pointing to that says this is only present in the guide to setting up Keycloak for SAML, but apparently this is also true for OIDC.

Explicitly set TLS 1.3 in Rancher, though it could be a bug in Rancher: https://github.com/rancher/rancher/issues/35654

Thanks. Yeah looks like this might work: https://github.com/rancher/rancher/releases/tag/v2.7.2-rc3

Considering other orchestration tools like dokku, dcos, deis, flynn, docker swarm, etc.. Kubernetes is no where near to them in terms of lines of code, on an average those tools are around 100k-200k lines of code.

> we are indeed writing a new orchestration system in Go, called `flyd`.

I know it's just a wild coincidence, but I couldn't help but be reminded of https://github.com/flynn/flynn

I love these projects and I'll definitely look into it more later. At the same time, I think it would be hard for me to want to leave Kubernetes. K8s isn't something that I love, but it's something that I know works and will continue to be supported in some fashion. I've seen Flynn (https://github.com/flynn/flynn) EOL. I've seen Docker Swarm's future be a bit hazy. I've seen Porter decide to put pretty restrictive limits on their free tier (though it is open source). I've seen Dokku lose steam and then pick up again - but still not be a solution for more than one server.

I love the idea of something that will Just Work, but a lot of stuff doesn't handle the parts I care about the most. Will my one-click PostgreSQL have a couple replicas in my cluster? Will it launch pg-backrest so I can have it backed up to S3? Will it deal with secret storage so I can just add my secrets in the UI and then have my apps grab those secrets as environment vars? Will it fail-over nicely?

Coolify looks really cool and I do want to check it out for real later (probably over the weekend to be realistic). However, it seems like it's single-server (for now) and that seems less compelling for me at the moment. It looks like you're planning on K8s support which would just be wonderful.

Part of me wishes I could get a much simplified UI for K8s. I use Lens at the moment and while it's very good, it doesn't really smooth over the rough bits of K8s, just kinda organizes and presents them. K8s isn't as bad as a lot of people say once you get past the pain of learning. Still, it misses the mark if what you just want a few simple things Heroku-style instead of every bell and whistle. Small users don't care about ingress, they just want their app to be accessible. Small users aren't interested in namespaces or storage classes or roles. Sure, it's important for K8s to support storage classes for large users who might have all sorts of opinions on how they want their data stored. For a small user, you often just want it stored on the local disk.

Likewise, I think there's a reasonably small set of things people often want to run. For example, the databases Coolify supports (MongoDB, MySQL, PostgreSQL, CouchDB, RedisDB) are probably what 95% of people want. There are K8s operators to run them, but like K8s itself it can often be "here's every knob we could think of, we documented 80% of them, now go write some yaml." Heroku lets me deploy PostgreSQL without that. Why can't I get something a bit more slimmed down like Heroku on K8s - so that if I need the additional power in the future, I can get my hands on it.

I'd even love it if this hypothetical K8s Heroku could commit the yaml it is going to apply to a GitHub repository for me so I can easily track infrastructure changes. It would even let people become more comfortable with K8s as they saw the changes they were making in the UI show up as commits in a repository.

I think the point of this rambling is that Coolify is kinda what people want from one perspective - something that seems nice and friendly and handle the cases that the vast majority of people need solved. However, it lacks the critical mass of K8s which can always leave its future in doubt (it looks like there are two of you on this project and open source can take a toll on people) and without high-availability/multi-server it feels a bit lacking for what so many people are looking for in a self-hosted Heroku. Coolify feels like what I'm looking for - I just want it with high-availability and the possibility of continuing on even if the project shuts down (because I can just use an underlying K8s layer, not because it's open source and I could become the new maintainer).

It feels like there's two camps that don't talk to each other: awesome UX people who know what people want and people building solutions that companies want while scaling up (but end up with a bit of a UX mess).

As others have mentioned, the current site (README.md) says very little about what Flynn is.

You can see a version of the repo and README.md, just before it became unmaintained, here:

https://github.com/flynn/flynn/tree/2c20757de8b32a40ba06f7e5...

IMHO it would have been much better if the maintainers had added the "Flynn is Unmaintained" information to the top of the README.md rather than removing all the existing information. I'll submit a GitHub issue suggesting it.

A plea to project maintainers in general: Please include enough information in your top-level README (or README.md, or README.whatever) so that someone who has never heard of your project can find get a good overview. I've also seen READMEs that only discuss the most recent changes. That's fine for readers who have already been following the project, but not for a more general audience.