Pros of k3s

• Lighter weight and more resource-efficient, ideal for edge computing and IoT devices
• Simpler installation and setup process, with a single binary distribution
• Faster startup time and lower memory footprint

Cons of k3s

• Less suitable for large-scale enterprise deployments
• Limited customization options compared to RKE2
• May lack some advanced features and security measures present in RKE2

Code Comparison

k3s installation:

curl -sfL https://get.k3s.io | sh -

RKE2 installation:

curl -sfL https://get.rke2.io | sh -

Both projects use similar installation methods, but their internal architectures and components differ significantly. k3s focuses on simplicity and minimal resource usage, while RKE2 prioritizes enterprise-grade features and security.

k3s is better suited for smaller deployments, edge computing, and resource-constrained environments. RKE2 is more appropriate for larger, production-grade clusters with stringent security requirements and the need for advanced features.

Pros of Kubernetes

• Larger community and ecosystem, with more extensive documentation and resources
• Greater flexibility and customization options for advanced users
• Wider range of supported platforms and deployment scenarios

Cons of Kubernetes

• More complex setup and configuration process
• Higher resource requirements for management components
• Steeper learning curve for new users and administrators

Code Comparison

RKE2:

rke2_version: v1.21.5+rke2r2
system_default_registry: ""
write_kubeconfig_mode: "0644"

Kubernetes:

apiVersion: kubeadm.k8s.io/v1beta3
kind: ClusterConfiguration
kubernetesVersion: v1.21.0
networking:
  podSubnet: 10.244.0.0/16

RKE2 configuration is typically simpler and more concise, while Kubernetes often requires more detailed configuration files. RKE2 aims to provide a more streamlined experience with sensible defaults, whereas Kubernetes offers more granular control over cluster settings.

Both projects use YAML for configuration, but RKE2 tends to have a flatter structure and fewer required fields. Kubernetes configurations often involve multiple YAML documents and more complex hierarchies to define various cluster components and settings.

Pros of kubespray

• Supports multiple operating systems and cloud providers
• Highly customizable with extensive configuration options
• Can deploy and manage multi-node clusters

Cons of kubespray

• More complex setup and learning curve
• Requires manual intervention for upgrades
• Slower deployment process compared to RKE2

Code Comparison

kubespray:

all:
  vars:
    ansible_user: ubuntu
    ansible_become: true
    kubernetes_version: v1.21.0
    kube_network_plugin: calico

RKE2:

token: my-shared-secret
tls-san:
  - my-kubernetes-domain.com
disable:
  - rke2-ingress-nginx

Key Differences

• kubespray uses Ansible for deployment, while RKE2 is a standalone binary
• RKE2 focuses on simplicity and ease of use, while kubespray offers more flexibility
• kubespray supports a wider range of configurations, but RKE2 provides a more streamlined experience
• RKE2 includes built-in components like etcd and containerd, while kubespray allows for more customization of these components

Both tools are actively maintained and have strong community support, but they cater to different use cases and preferences in the Kubernetes ecosystem.

Pros of OKD

• Offers a complete OpenShift distribution with enterprise-grade features
• Provides a web console for easier cluster management
• Includes integrated CI/CD pipelines and developer tools

Cons of OKD

• Higher resource requirements and complexity compared to RKE2
• Steeper learning curve for administrators and developers
• Less flexibility in terms of customization and lightweight deployments

Code Comparison

OKD (OpenShift):

apiVersion: apps.openshift.io/v1
kind: DeploymentConfig
metadata:
  name: example-app
spec:
  replicas: 3
  template:
    spec:
      containers:
      - name: example-container
        image: example-image:latest

RKE2:

apiVersion: apps/v1
kind: Deployment
metadata:
  name: example-app
spec:
  replicas: 3
  template:
    spec:
      containers:
      - name: example-container
        image: example-image:latest

The code comparison shows that OKD uses OpenShift-specific resources like DeploymentConfig, while RKE2 uses standard Kubernetes resources. This highlights OKD's tighter integration with OpenShift features, whereas RKE2 maintains closer alignment with vanilla Kubernetes.

Pros of MicroK8s

• Lightweight and fast to install, ideal for edge computing and IoT devices
• Snap-based installation provides automatic updates and easy management
• Includes add-ons for common services like DNS, dashboard, and storage

Cons of MicroK8s

• Limited to Ubuntu and other snap-supported Linux distributions
• Single-node focused, requiring additional setup for multi-node clusters
• Less suitable for large-scale production environments compared to RKE2

Code Comparison

MicroK8s installation:

sudo snap install microk8s --classic
microk8s status --wait-ready
microk8s kubectl get nodes

RKE2 installation:

curl -sfL https://get.rke2.io | sh -
systemctl enable rke2-server.service
systemctl start rke2-server.service

Both projects aim to simplify Kubernetes deployment, but they target different use cases. MicroK8s focuses on simplicity and ease of use for small-scale deployments, while RKE2 is designed for production-grade clusters with enhanced security features. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project, such as scale, supported platforms, and desired features.