Technology
Kubernetes
Cluster architecture, workload isolation and progressive delivery — plus an honest conversation about whether you need it at all.
The right tool at the wrong scale is the wrong tool
Kubernetes solves real problems: workload density, declarative operations, and a common substrate across many teams. It also introduces an operational surface that needs owners.
Below roughly a dozen services, a managed container runtime usually wins on total cost. We will say so, and we would rather run your workloads on something simpler than bill you for a cluster nobody wants to own.
Practice
How we use it
Cluster architecture
Node pools, isolation boundaries and upgrade strategy designed for the team that has to operate it.
Progressive delivery
Canary and blue-green rollouts driven by service-level objectives rather than by a deployer's confidence.
Autoscaling
Workload and cluster scaling tuned against real traffic shape, including the cold-start cost.
Security posture
Pod security, network policy and supply-chain controls applied as defaults, not as a hardening project.
Judgement
When Kubernetes is the right call
And when it is not. A technology page that only lists strengths is a brochure.
Reach for it when
- Many services across multiple teams needing a common substrate
- Workloads with genuinely variable demand where density saves real money
- Organisations that can staff platform ownership properly
Look elsewhere when
- A handful of services — managed container runtimes are cheaper end to end
- Teams with no platform owner; an unowned cluster degrades quickly
Stack
Technologies we use here
Sectors
Where we run it
Also relevant