What OpenShift Virtualization quietly asks of your storage team
KubeVirt runs VMs inside pods. That sentence hides an entire storage conversation that most migration plans discover in the pilot.
Kubernetes, OpenShift, and the operating model.
KubeVirt runs VMs inside pods. That sentence hides an entire storage conversation that most migration plans discover in the pilot.
A translation guide. Most of what you know transfers; the vocabulary and the failure model do not, and the vocabulary is what makes the documentation unreadable at first.
Standing a cluster up is a weekend. Keeping it current for five years across a moving API surface, operator versions and node images is the actual commitment.
Packaged operational knowledge is the best idea in the Kubernetes ecosystem and the largest source of unmanaged dependency risk in most clusters.
Every Kubernetes component reads from one distributed key-value store. When the cluster is sick, that store is usually why, and almost nobody monitors it.
The performance argument is mostly settled and mostly irrelevant. The question is who does the lifecycle work and what you do on a Tuesday afternoon.
The idea is smaller than the vocabulary suggests: the repository is the desired state, and something continuously makes reality match it. What it costs is discipline about where truth lives.
Kubernetes moves work rather than removing it. The work lands on a team that was not created, and the symptoms look technical.
In a managed cloud cluster, asking for a load balancer produces one. On your own hardware, nothing happens, and the documentation does not mention it.
Starting from a pile of hand-built servers. The first thing to automate is not provisioning, it is the thing you do every month and get slightly wrong.
A task that is safe to run twice is a different kind of object from a script. Getting this right is what separates configuration management from remote scripting.
A static host file and a password in a variable will work for twenty machines and become the reason the project stops at two hundred.
One creates things that did not exist. The other configures things that do. The confusion comes from both being called infrastructure as code.
Every tutorial starts from nothing. Real environments start from fifteen years of accumulated configuration, and the strategy for getting there is different.
Your playbooks now change production. That makes them software, and the minimum viable testing discipline is smaller than you fear.
Disaggregation did to networking what it did to servers twenty years earlier. The technology works; the interesting part is what it does to your operating model.
The fear that stops network teams automating is a bad push taking the network down. The first six months should not involve pushing anything.