Persistent disc on VM vs managed databases for Kubernetes cluster

10/22/2018

Migrating a Postgres database from Heroku to Google Cloud in a Kubernetes and Docker setup.

Trying to decide what is a better approach.

1st approach - Use a persistent disc on the VM that is used by a deployed Postgres instance in the Kubernetes cluster.

2nd approach - Use a managed Postgres SQL database that the cluster deployments connect to.

I assume the main differences would be for the maintenance and updating of the database? Are there any big trade-offs of one setup vs the other?

-- George Lovegrove

database

google-cloud-datastore

google-cloud-platform

google-kubernetes-engine

kubernetes

Similar Questions

Elasticsearch plugin on Kubernetes

Helm chart failing with Required value

Ingress rules not works

Azure AKS HPA failed to get cpu utilization

1 Answer

10/22/2018

This is an opinion question so I'll answer with an option.

Kubernetes Postgres
- Pros:
  - You can manage your own Postgres cluster.
  - No vendor lock-in.
  - Postgres is local to your cluster. (It may not be too much of a difference)
  - Do your own maintenance.
  - Raw cost is less.
- Cons:
  - If you run into any Postgres cluster problems you are responsible to fix them.
  - You have to manage your own storage
  - No vendor lock-in but you still need to move the data if you decide to switch providers.
  - You have to do your own backups.
Managed postgres SQL database
- Pros:
  - GCP does it all for you
  - Any problems will be handled by GCP
  - Maintenance also handled by GCP.
  - Storage handled by GCP.
  - Backups performed by GCP
- Cons:
  - Vendor lock-in
  - Postgres not local to your cluster.
  - Will probably cost more.

-- Rico

Source: StackOverflow