Hacker News Reader

Man this brilliant and goes straight to test it with my development workflow. Namespace isolation was always PITA,but full isolation would require a dedicated clusters so having a best of both solution really changes the game for lean and cost effective continues delivery.

As for value prop, maybe emphasize multi tenancy a bit more as this has the most cost saving potential at scale.

View on HN

Thanks for the kind words marvin-hansen, if you get a chance to test it out--would love to hear what you think or if you have any questions!

For sure, probably test it over the weekend. I've dealt with k8s virtualization before and as a result, my current system uses contextual auto configuration for all it's services which makes it very easy to lift it from one kubernetes context to another, or even a docker only environment as it's often the case with CI.

However my primary challenge is chronic cluster under utilization after having rewriten the bulk of the system in Rust. Therefore virtualizating the cluster makes the most sense. I think Google Cloud conducted a study that found that the bulk, like 75%, of their K8s customer over provision by a wide margin. So there is definitely a market for cluster virtualization and even more so for multi tenancy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com