Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Azure Functions vs Kubernetes: What are the differences?
Azure Functions and Kubernetes are both popular cloud computing platforms used for deploying and managing applications. Here are the key differences between the two.
Container Orchestration: Kubernetes is primarily a container orchestration platform that allows developers to manage and run containerized applications across a cluster of nodes. It provides advanced features like auto-scaling, load balancing, and deployment management. Azure Functions, on the other hand, is a serverless compute service. It allows developers to write and deploy functions without worrying about infrastructure management or scaling.
Deployment Model: In Kubernetes, applications are typically deployed as containerized workloads, where each application component runs within its own container. Azure Functions, on the other hand, deploys functions as individual units of code. Each function is executed in response to an event trigger or an HTTP request.
Scaling: Kubernetes enables horizontal scalability by allowing developers to spin up additional pods or nodes to handle increased workloads. It supports autoscaling based on resource utilization or custom metrics. Azure Functions also support autoscaling, but it scales at a function level. Each function can be independently scaled to handle varying workloads.
Serverless Computing: Azure Functions is designed around the concept of serverless computing. It abstracts away the underlying infrastructure and only charges for the actual resource consumption. Kubernetes, on the other hand, requires developers to provision and manage the infrastructure for their applications.
Development Experience: Kubernetes requires more upfront configuration and setup compared to Azure Functions. Developers have to define deployment manifests, services, and other resources to deploy applications. Azure Functions, being a serverless service, provides a simpler development experience. Developers can focus on writing the code for individual functions without worrying about the underlying infrastructure.
Managed Services: Azure Functions is a fully managed service provided by Microsoft. It handles the management of infrastructure, scaling, and high availability automatically. On the other hand, Kubernetes can be self-hosted or managed by a cloud provider. The level of management and support may vary depending on the chosen deployment model.
In summary, Azure Functions is ideal for serverless computing scenarios, while Kubernetes provides advanced capabilities for container orchestration and management.
Our whole DevOps stack consists of the following tools:
- GitHub (incl. GitHub Pages/Markdown for Documentation, GettingStarted and HowTo's) for collaborative review and code management tool
- Respectively Git as revision control system
- SourceTree as Git GUI
- Visual Studio Code as IDE
- CircleCI for continuous integration (automatize development process)
- Prettier / TSLint / ESLint as code linter
- SonarQube as quality gate
- Docker as container management (incl. Docker Compose for multi-container application management)
- VirtualBox for operating system simulation tests
- Kubernetes as cluster management for docker containers
- Heroku for deploying in test environments
- nginx as web server (preferably used as facade server in production environment)
- SSLMate (using OpenSSL) for certificate management
- Amazon EC2 (incl. Amazon S3) for deploying in stage (production-like) and production environments
- PostgreSQL as preferred database system
- Redis as preferred in-memory database/store (great for caching)
The main reason we have chosen Kubernetes over Docker Swarm is related to the following artifacts:
- Key features: Easy and flexible installation, Clear dashboard, Great scaling operations, Monitoring is an integral part, Great load balancing concepts, Monitors the condition and ensures compensation in the event of failure.
- Applications: An application can be deployed using a combination of pods, deployments, and services (or micro-services).
- Functionality: Kubernetes as a complex installation and setup process, but it not as limited as Docker Swarm.
- Monitoring: It supports multiple versions of logging and monitoring when the services are deployed within the cluster (Elasticsearch/Kibana (ELK), Heapster/Grafana, Sysdig cloud integration).
- Scalability: All-in-one framework for distributed systems.
- Other Benefits: Kubernetes is backed by the Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF), huge community among container orchestration tools, it is an open source and modular tool that works with any OS.
Pros of Azure Functions
- Pay only when invoked14
- Great developer experience for C#11
- Multiple languages supported9
- Great debugging support7
- Can be used as lightweight https service5
- Easy scalability4
- WebHooks3
- Costo3
- Event driven2
- Azure component events for Storage, services etc2
- Poor developer experience for C#2
Pros of Kubernetes
- Leading docker container management solution166
- Simple and powerful129
- Open source107
- Backed by google76
- The right abstractions58
- Scale services25
- Replication controller20
- Permission managment11
- Supports autoscaling9
- Simple8
- Cheap8
- Self-healing6
- Open, powerful, stable5
- Reliable5
- No cloud platform lock-in5
- Promotes modern/good infrascture practice5
- Scalable4
- Quick cloud setup4
- Custom and extensibility3
- Captain of Container Ship3
- Cloud Agnostic3
- Backed by Red Hat3
- Runs on azure3
- A self healing environment with rich metadata3
- Everything of CaaS2
- Gke2
- Golang2
- Easy setup2
- Expandable2
- Sfg2
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Azure Functions
- No persistent (writable) file system available1
- Poor support for Linux environments1
- Sporadic server & language runtime issues1
- Not suited for long-running applications1
Cons of Kubernetes
- Steep learning curve16
- Poor workflow for development15
- Orchestrates only infrastructure8
- High resource requirements for on-prem clusters4
- Too heavy for simple systems2
- Additional vendor lock-in (Docker)1
- More moving parts to secure1
- Additional Technology Overhead1