Introduction

When it comes to deploying production-ready Kubernetes clusters, egress fees can be a hidden cost that quickly adds up. Major cloud providers like AWS, Google Cloud, and Azure are known for charging these fees, making it harder to predict monthly expenses, send data to other service providers, and ultimately migrate your data elsewhere. Some managed Kubernetes providers, however, offer a more transparent pricing model by eliminating egress fees altogether. In this article, we’ll compare four such providers: Scaleway, Upcloud, Civo, and Server Space.

All four providers offer managed Kubernetes, which simplifies cluster maintenance and scalability. However, there are differences in their feature sets and usability, which we’ll explore in more detail in the cost comparison section.

Criteria for Comparison

Let’s take a look at the data, and then dig into each feature below the table.

Feature Comparison

Data Centre Locations

Each provider has different data centre locations that could impact your choice based on the proximity to your target audience. Scaleway is only in Europe, Civo is on both sides of the pond, Server Space is in seven countries worldwide, and Upcloud has multiple regions in several countries, providing flexibility for diverse deployment needs.

ReadWriteMany Support

ReadWriteMany (RWX) is a crucial feature for Kubernetes clusters that allows multiple pods to read from and write to the same persistent volume simultaneously. This capability is particularly important for workloads requiring shared access, such as content management systems, logging, and certain types of databases.

Currently, the major cloud providers (hyperscalers like AWS, Google Cloud, and Azure) are the only ones that support RWX natively in their managed Kubernetes offerings. As such, the managed Kubernetes providers we discuss here do not yet offer built-in RWX support. When asked about this limitation, they indicated that support for this is on their roadmaps, but it is at least six months away.

However, this isn’t a deal breaker. For those who require RWX functionality today, there are several workaround options you can explore:

• Install Longhorn: The easiest option for setting up block storage in your cluster. It provides a simple way to add RWX support to your pods.
• Rook or OpenEBS: These alternatives are more flexible and powerful, allowing you to build a highly customized storage solution for your cluster.

Using these self-managed storage solutions can also lead to cost savings. They utilize the unused storage already available on your nodes, avoiding the need to purchase additional storage volumes from the cloud provider. This cost-effective approach means that as long as your node storage is sufficient, you won’t incur extra charges.

Official Terraform Support

Official Terraform support is vital for those looking to adopt infrastructure-as-code practices. While Scaleway, Upcloud, and Civo offer full Terraform integration, Server Space’s support is currently incomplete, potentially complicating automated deployments.

Cluster provisioning speed

Another technical feature to consider is the cluster provisioning speed, although this is less of an issue in production. During development, however, you’re going to be spinning up and tearing down your clusters quite often. It’s important to factor in how much time your developers are spending waiting on these operations.

Civo is very fast: They claim one and a half minutes, and while it sometimes goes over, it’s always less than two. This is still the fastest I’ve seen anywhere. Scaleway is quite slow, relatively. I haven’t had a chance to test this on Upcloud or Server Space yet so if anyone out there has data on this, please share it with me, and I’ll update this article.

To see how these compare with other providers, take a look at the article Comparing the Top Eight Managed Kubernetes Providers. It also has some great analysis. The only problem with that article is that it doesn’t review outside of the top eight. Scaleway is included, which is nice.

Years in Business

The experience of each provider varies significantly, which can influence the maturity and reliability of their services. Scaleway, established 25 years ago, has a long-standing presence in the European cloud market, offering a range of services beyond Kubernetes. Upcloud, with 12 years in operation, also brings a well-established infrastructure and a solid reputation for reliability. Civo, though relatively newer with 6 years in business, has quickly made a name for itself as a specialized Kubernetes provider, particularly valued by developers for its simplicity and speed. Server Space, the newest provider on this list with 5 years in business, offers a streamlined approach with competitive pricing and growing popularity in the European market.

Service Level Agreements (SLAs)

The SLAs offered by each provider reflect their commitment to uptime and service reliability, which are essential considerations for production workloads. Upcloud leads with a 100% SLA, providing the highest guarantee of availability among the providers reviewed. Civo, with a 99.95% SLA, balances reliability with cost-efficiency, making it suitable for various production applications. Scaleway’s 99.5% SLA may appeal to users prioritizing budget-conscious solutions with some tolerance for minor downtime. Server Space, with a 99.9% SLA, offers solid reliability while remaining competitively priced. These SLAs give users a range of options to match their reliability needs and budget.

Headquarters

Each provider’s headquarters location offers insight into their operational focus and areas of influence. Scaleway is headquartered in Paris, France, and emphasizes data sovereignty and compliance with European regulations, which can be beneficial for EU-based companies. Upcloud, based in Helsinki, Finland, operates with a global outlook, providing services across many regions and maintaining a strong presence in Europe. Civo, headquartered in London, UK, has a focus on simplicity and developer-centric solutions, particularly attractive to startups and small to medium-sized enterprises. Server Space, based in Amsterdam, Netherlands, also emphasizes European data regulations and affordability, appealing to businesses across the EU and beyond.

One notable aspect of the providers compared here is that none of them are headquartered in the United States. This offers a potential advantage in terms of data privacy, as they are not directly subject to US laws that can sometimes compel US-based companies to turn over data stored in other countries.

A prominent case exemplifying this challenge is the Microsoft Corp. v. United States case. In 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice sought to access emails stored in Microsoft’s Ireland data center as part of a criminal investigation. Microsoft argued that the US warrant should not apply extraterritorially to data stored outside the US. Ultimately, the US Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Microsoft, setting a precedent that US-issued warrants do not reach overseas data centers by default. In 2018, however, the passage of the CLOUD Act (Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data Act) revised US policy, allowing authorities to access foreign-stored data held by US-based companies through new, standardized agreements between nations.

This shift in legislation means that US-based companies may still face complex requirements when holding data abroad. For businesses concerned about extraterritorial data demands, providers headquartered outside the U.S., such as Scaleway in France, Upcloud in Finland, Civo in the UK, and Server Space in the Netherlands, might offer additional peace of mind regarding international data sovereignty.

Cost Breakdown

Here’s a breakdown of the basic cost for running a production-ready cluster with each provider, including managed Kubernetes, nodes, and a load balancer.

The above cost comparison does not include additional services like block storage, object storage, or database services. I’m focusing on the essential resources needed.

Cost Analysis

• Scaleway: The most expensive option at $357.94/month, primarily due to higher managed Kubernetes and node costs. It may still be worth it for those needing extensive data center options and a strong European presence.
• Upcloud: A mid-tier option at $273.02/month, offering a competitive SLA and global data center coverage.
• Civo: The most affordable choice at $130.00/month. Its free managed Kubernetes service significantly lowers the barrier to entry, making it suitable for startups or small-scale production environments.
• Server Space: Priced at $144.00/month, it offers a balanced approach with competitive node pricing and a relatively low basic cluster cost. However, incomplete Terraform support might be a consideration.

Additional Considerations

While the above costs cover the basic managed Kubernetes setup, additional services like Block storage, Object storage, and Database services could further influence the overall expenses. Moreover, the lack of ReadWriteMany support across all providers could be a factor in workload planning.

Conclusion

For those looking to avoid the restrictive egress fees of major hyperscalers, these four providers offer a solid alternative. Civo emerges as the most affordable option, while Scaleway offers more features and data center options at a higher cost. Upcloud and Server Space fall somewhere in between, with unique strengths that might appeal to different use cases.

When choosing the right provider, consider factors like data centre location, pricing, SLA, and Terraform support in relation to your specific needs. Each provider has its own strengths, and this comparison aims to help you find the most cost-effective and reliable Kubernetes environment for your workloads.