Komodor is an autonomous AI SRE platform for Kubernetes. Powered by Klaudia, it’s an agentic AI solution for visualizing, troubleshooting and optimizing cloud-native infrastructure, allowing enterprises to operate Kubernetes at scale.
Proactively detect & remediate issues in your clusters & workloads.
Easily operate & manage K8s clusters at scale.
Reduce costs without compromising on performance.
Guides, blogs, webinars & tools to help you troubleshoot and scale Kubernetes.
Tips, trends, and lessons from the field.
Practical guides for real-world K8s ops.
How it works, how to run it, and how not to break it.
Short, clear articles on Kubernetes concepts, best practices, and troubleshooting.
Infra stories from teams like yours, brief, honest, and right to the point.
Product-focused clips showing Komodor in action, from drift detection to add‑on support.
Live demos, real use cases, and expert Q&A, all up-to-date.
The missing UI for Helm – a simplified way of working with Helm.
Visualize Crossplane resources and speed up troubleshooting.
Validate, clean & secure your K8s YAMLs.
Navigate the community-driven K8s ecosystem map.
Who we are, and our promise for the future of K8s.
Have a question for us? Write us.
Come aboard the K8s ship – we’re hiring!
Here’s what they’re saying about Komodor in the news.
You’ve migrated to Kubernetes, congratulations.
Now your cloud bill has tripled, your finance team is asking uncomfortable questions, and you’re spending more time justifying infrastructure costs than actually running infrastructure.
This article walks through the real mechanics of Kubernetes cost optimization, the specific levers you can pull today, and how to stop the bleeding without another three-month platform refactoring project.
The first place your money disappears in Kubernetes is resource requests and limits.
Engineers, being engineers, tend to overestimate capacity by a factor of three because nobody wants to be the person who caused an outage at 2 AM.
This culture of defensive overprovisioning comes at a steep price, with 31% of IT leaders reporting that more than half of their cloud spend is wasted, largely due to overprovisioned and forgotten resources.
Right-sizing means setting resource requests that match actual usage patterns, not worst-case apocalypse scenarios.
Start by collecting actual resource utilization data over at least two weeks, ideally a full month, to capture traffic patterns, batch jobs, and that one-time marketing campaign nobody told you about.
Tools like Prometheus and metrics-server give you the raw numbers, but you need to analyze P95 and P99 usage, not just averages.
Averages will lie to you because that 3 AM spike when the ETL job runs will get smoothed out, and then you’ll wonder why pods are getting OOMKilled every night.
Once you have real numbers, adjust resource requests to sit slightly above P95 usage with reasonable headroom, typically 20-30% depending on your application’s behavior.
Limits are trickier because setting CPU limits too aggressively can cause throttling even when nodes have spare capacity, thanks to how the Linux CFS scheduler works.
For CPU, consider setting requests but not limits unless you’re dealing with truly untrusted workloads.
For memory, always set limits because OOM behavior without limits is unpredictable and usually catastrophic.
The hard part is the organizational trust problem. Teams need confidence that lower resource requests won’t cause reliability issues, which means you need proper monitoring, alerting, and ideally automated remediation before anyone will sign off on changes.
Start with non-critical services, prove the approach works, then expand.
Vertical Pod Autoscaler does the right-sizing math automatically by watching resource usage and updating requests over time.
In Kubernetes, a VerticalPodAutoscaler automatically updates a workload management resource, such as a Deployment or StatefulSet, to automatically adjust infrastructure resource requests and limits to match actual usage.
Source: Kubernetes Official Documentation
It sounds perfect until you realize VPA in recommendation mode just tells you what to do without doing it, and in auto mode, it restarts pods to apply new resource values, which can cause application disruption if you’re not careful.
VPA works best for stateless workloads with graceful shutdown handling and when you’ve configured PodDisruptionBudgets to prevent too many pods restarting simultaneously.
For stateful applications or anything with long startup times, VPA becomes more complicated because the restart behavior can cause availability issues.
The recommendation mode is actually useful as a continuous audit tool that flags opportunities without automatically changing anything, letting you review and apply changes during maintenance windows.
One approach that works well is using VPA in recommendation mode with automation that applies changes during off-peak hours after human review, giving you most of the benefits without the operational risk.
Horizontal Pod Autoscaler (HPA) scales the number of pod replicas based on metrics, and most teams set it up once and never look at it again.
The default metrics are CPU and memory, but these often aren’t the actual bottleneck in your application.
If you’re running a web service, requests per second or queue depth are usually better scaling signals than raw CPU usage.
Custom metrics require more setup but prevent the classic problem where CPU usage is low but response times are terrible because you’re bottlenecked on database connections or external API rate limits.
The scaling thresholds matter more than most people think.
Setting target CPU utilization at 50% sounds conservative, but it means you’re paying for double the capacity you’re actually using at steady state.
Increasing target utilization to 70-80% reduces waste, but requires confidence in your scaling speed and monitoring.
The stabilization window and scale-down behavior need tuning too, because aggressive scale-down creates thrashing where pods constantly churn, which wastes money on pod startup overhead and makes your logs unreadable.
A scale-down stabilization window of 5-10 minutes prevents overreacting to temporary traffic dips while still responding to real load decreases.
Your node pool strategy determines baseline infrastructure costs before you even start thinking about pod optimization.
Table alt text: Node Pool Strategy Cost Comparison
Running everything on the same instance type is simple but expensive, because you’re either oversizing for compute-bound workloads or overpaying for memory you don’t need.
The goal is heterogeneous node pools matched to workload patterns, which sounds great until you’re managing six different node pools and trying to figure out why pods are pending.
Spot instances cost 60-80% less than on-demand, which is hard to ignore when you’re looking at six-figure monthly bills.
The catch is they can be reclaimed with 30 seconds to two minutes notice, depending on the cloud provider.
This works fine for stateless batch jobs, CI/CD runners, and any workload where interruption just means “try again later” rather than “wake up the on-call.”
For long-running services, spot works if you have proper automation that drains nodes gracefully and reschedules pods before termination.
The trick is diversifying across multiple instance types and availability zones, because spot capacity fluctuates, and you don’t want all your capacity disappearing simultaneously.
Tools like Cluster Autoscaler or Karpenter can manage this automatically, spinning up replacement capacity before terminating nodes when they receive interruption notices.
A common pattern is running 50-70% of capacity on spot with on-demand as a stable base. The reliability trade-off is real though, so track interruption rates and have circuit breakers that shift back to on-demand if spot availability drops below acceptable levels.
Reserved instances and savings plans are the boring, responsible way to reduce costs when you have predictable baseline capacity.
Committing to one or three years of usage gets you 30-70% discounts depending on commitment level and payment terms.
The risk is overcommitting and paying for capacity you don’t use, or undercommitting and missing out on savings.
The safe approach is analyzing minimum capacity over the past year, not average or peak capacity, then committing to 60-70% of that minimum.
This leaves room for workload changes without locking in too much spend, while still capturing meaningful savings on your stable baseline.
In AWS, Compute Savings Plans are more flexible than EC2 Reserved Instances because they apply across instance families and regions, reducing the coordination overhead.
Azure Reserved VM Instances work similarly, with the added benefit that you can exchange instance sizes within the same family.
GCP Committed Use Discounts have the advantage of automatically applying to matching usage without manual assignment.
Track utilization monthly because underutilized reservations are just prepaid waste, and most cloud providers allow selling or exchanging unused commitments if your architecture changes.
Cluster Autoscaler adds and removes nodes based on pod scheduling needs, which sounds automatic but requires careful tuning to avoid costs spiraling.
The scale-up behavior is usually fine because pending pods need to go somewhere, but scale-down is where money gets wasted.
The default scale-down delay is 10 minutes, meaning nodes sit idle, burning money while the autoscaler decides whether they’re really underutilized.
Reducing this to 2-3 minutes for non-production clusters saves money without meaningful risk.
For production, longer delays prevent thrashing but cost more, so tune based on your typical traffic patterns and deployment frequency.
Node utilization thresholds for scale-down matter too, with the default being 50%, meaning any node using less than half its resources becomes a candidate for removal.
Raising this to 60-70% packs workloads more densely but requires confidence that your scheduling and resource requests are accurate.
The expander strategy determines which node pool gets new nodes during scale-up, and most-pod-capacity is usually wrong because it prioritizes the biggest instances even when smaller ones would work fine.
Priority-based expansion lets you prefer spot instances and cheaper instance types, falling back to expensive options only when necessary.
Persistent storage is easy to forget about until you realize you’re paying thousands per month for volumes that nobody’s using anymore.
PersistentVolumeClaims in Kubernetes don’t automatically clean themselves up when applications are deleted, leading to orphaned volumes accumulating in your cloud account.
The first step is implementing retention policies that match business requirements rather than defaulting to “keep forever.”
Development and staging environments rarely need data retention beyond a few days, but most teams never configure volume reclaim policies.
Setting reclaimPolicy to Delete for non-production storage classes means volumes disappear with their PVCs instead of lingering as zombie costs.
For production data, you need actual lifecycle policies that snapshot and then delete volumes after applications are decommissioned, with appropriate approval workflows, because nobody wants to be the person who deleted production data.
Storage class determines the underlying volume type, which has massive cost implications.
Premium SSD storage costs five to ten times more than standard HDD, but most applications don’t actually need premium performance.
The pattern should be application-driven, where databases and high-IOPS workloads get fast storage and everything else uses standard tiers.
Log aggregation and batch processing typically work fine on slow storage, saving significant money for workloads that are just doing sequential writes.
Many teams default all PVCs to premium storage because it’s easier than thinking about requirements, which is why storage costs quietly grow until someone finally audits volume types.
Creating multiple storage classes with clear naming like “fast-ssd,” “standard-ssd,” and “economy-hdd” makes it obvious when someone’s about to provision expensive storage for a use case that doesn’t need it.
In AWS, gp3 volumes offer better price-performance than gp2 and allow tuning IOPS independently of size, preventing the classic problem where you provision huge volumes just to get adequate performance.
Volume snapshots for backup and disaster recovery add up quickly, especially when retention is set to forever and nobody ever cleans up old snapshots.
The right retention depends on recovery point objectives and compliance requirements, but 7-30 days covers most non-compliance scenarios.
Automated snapshot management with tiered retention, keeping daily snapshots for a week, weekly for a month, and monthly for a year, balances recovery capability against storage costs.
Cross-region snapshot replication is necessary for disaster recovery but doubles snapshot costs, so limit it to truly critical data rather than replicating everything.
Many teams also forget that snapshots are incremental but still cost money based on changed blocks, so high-churn volumes rack up snapshot costs faster than expected.
Visibility into which teams or applications are driving costs is a prerequisite for making informed optimization decisions.
Without cost allocation, you’re flying blind, making guesses about where money is going and who should fix it.
Kubernetes doesn’t provide this natively, which is why most organizations struggle with showback and chargeback.
The foundation is consistent labeling, with required labels for team, application, environment, and cost-center applied through admission controllers or policy engines.
These labels let you aggregate resource usage and costs by logical groups rather than just seeing one giant infrastructure bill.
ResourceQuotas and LimitRanges at the namespace level prevent individual teams from consuming unlimited resources and provide hard enforcement of cost budgets.
The challenge is setting reasonable quotas that don’t block legitimate growth while still preventing runaway costs from poorly optimized applications.
Kubernetes cost allocation tools pull together resource usage, node costs, and shared infrastructure overhead to show per-namespace or per-application spending.
The tricky part is allocating shared costs like control plane, networking, and monitoring across workloads in a way that feels fair.
Simple approaches divide shared costs proportionally based on compute usage, which penalizes compute-heavy applications but is easy to explain.
More sophisticated methods consider network traffic, storage, and other factors, but complexity increases and teams start arguing about allocation methodology instead of optimizing their applications.
The goal is directional accuracy, not perfect cost accounting, because even rough visibility is better than none.
Publishing cost reports to teams monthly or weekly creates accountability and usually triggers optimization work without heavy-handed mandates.
Showback reports costs without actually billing internal teams, making infrastructure spending visible while keeping budgets centralized.
Chargeback transfers costs to consuming teams through internal billing, creating stronger incentives to optimize but also creating friction and overhead.
Showback is simpler to implement and less politically fraught, making it a good starting point.
Teams see their costs, understand their impact, and can make optimization decisions without finance department involvement.
Chargeback makes sense when you need hard cost controls or have independent business units with separate budgets, but requires more mature processes and tooling.
The challenge with chargeback is shared infrastructure costs, because should you bill for that shiny new observability stack you installed, or absorb it as platform overhead?
There’s no perfect answer, just trade-offs between simplicity and precision.
Network egress charges are the surprise expense that shows up three months after launch when you realize inter-region data transfer costs more than compute.
Cloud providers charge for data leaving their networks, and Kubernetes with microservices makes this painful because services talk to each other constantly.
Cross-region traffic is especially expensive, often 10-20 times higher than intra-region transfers.
The solution is keeping related services in the same region and availability zone where possible, reducing inter-AZ and inter-region traffic.
Topology-aware routing in Kubernetes can prefer local endpoints, keeping traffic within zones when available replicas exist nearby.
This requires some replicas in multiple zones for high availability, creating tension between cost optimization and reliability.
The practical approach is running enough replicas for availability but using traffic routing policies that strongly prefer local communication.
For batch workloads and background jobs that don’t need multi-region, simply running them in a single region eliminates most egress charges.
Data-heavy pipelines, log forwarding, and metrics collection are usually the biggest egress offenders because they move large volumes continuously.
Service meshes like Istio and Linkerd add observability and security but also increase network overhead through sidecar proxies.
Each request bounces through multiple proxies, adding compute costs and latency for proxy workloads.
More concerning are egress gateways, which centralize outbound traffic for security but potentially double egress costs if traffic crosses zones unnecessarily.
The trade-off is legitimate: better security and observability versus higher infrastructure costs. But you should measure the actual cost impact before assuming it’s worth it.
For some organizations, service mesh overhead adds 15-20% to infrastructure costs with marginal observability improvements over simpler approaches.
For others, the operational benefits justify the expense.
Context matters, and there’s no universal answer.
Container image size affects multiple cost dimensions: registry storage, image pull time, and network transfer during deployments.
Large images slow down autoscaling because nodes spend minutes pulling gigabytes of image data before pods can start.
Optimizing base images and build processes reduces these costs while improving deployment speed.
Multi-stage Docker builds separate build-time dependencies from runtime requirements, keeping only necessary files in final images.
This commonly reduces image sizes from several gigabytes to hundreds of megabytes, cutting pull times and storage costs proportionally.
Alpine Linux and distroless images provide minimal base layers, including only what’s absolutely required to run your application.
The catch with Alpine is musl libc compatibility issues with some applications expecting glibc, and distroless images make debugging harder because there’s no shell.
For most applications, the trade-off is worth it, but keep full images available for development and troubleshooting environments.
Docker image layers are cached at multiple points: build cache, registry, and node-local cache.
Structuring Dockerfiles so frequently changing content comes last maximizes cache hit rates.
Dependencies and base configurations should install early in the Dockerfile, with application code copying last.
This means rebuilding only the final layer when code changes rather than reinstalling all dependencies.
Registry pull-through caching or local registry mirrors reduce external registry bandwidth and speed up deployments by keeping commonly used images nearby.
For large clusters, the bandwidth savings from local caching become substantial.
Kubernetes makes it easy to deploy workloads and forget about them, leading to deployments running continuously despite not serving any traffic.
Development environments, temporary test deployments, and abandoned experiments accumulate over time, consuming resources nobody’s actively using.
Finding these requires scanning for pods with zero traffic, deployments with zero requests, or services with no active connections.
The hard part is distinguishing between legitimately idle resources, like scheduled batch jobs waiting for their cron trigger, and actual waste.
Development and staging clusters typically sit idle outside business hours and weekends, burning money to serve zero users.
Scaling down or completely shutting down non-production clusters during off-hours saves 50-70% of their costs with minimal impact.
This requires automation that scales deployments to zero replicas on a schedule and scales back up before business hours.
Tools like cluster-proportional-autoscaler or simple CronJobs can handle this, though you need guards against scaling down during active testing or deployment work.
Better yet, time-to-live policies that automatically delete non-production namespaces after set periods force teams to explicitly retain environments rather than letting them accumulate indefinitely.
Services that once served traffic but are now obsolete often keep running because nobody’s sure if they’re still needed.
Identifying these requires correlating metrics, service mesh data, or API gateway logs to find services with sustained zero traffic.
The organizational challenge is bigger than the technical one, because someone needs authority to delete services and handle the inevitable ticket three months later when someone discovers they actually did need that obscure internal API.
The safe process is marking candidates for deletion, notifying teams, waiting for objections, then cleaning up after a grace period.
This takes longer but avoids accidentally breaking things in ways that aren’t immediately obvious.
Applications without proper rate limiting can drive runaway resource consumption when traffic spikes or misbehaving clients flood your APIs.
Kubernetes rate limiting protects infrastructure from excessive costs due to traffic anomalies or attacks.
API gateway or ingress-level rate limiting is the first line of defense, blocking excessive requests before they consume backend resources.
Application-level rate limiting provides finer control and can distinguish between different clients or request types.
Ingress controllers like NGINX support per-IP and per-route rate limiting that prevents individual clients from monopolizing resources.
Setting reasonable limits requires understanding normal traffic patterns and establishing thresholds that allow legitimate bursts while blocking abuse.
Typical patterns set per-IP limits around 100-1000 requests per minute for public APIs, with higher limits for authenticated or known clients.
Rate limiting at ingress level is cheaper than letting requests hit your application pods, scale additional replicas, then reject requests with errors.
The rejected traffic never consumes compute resources beyond basic connection handling.
Application rate limiting provides more sophisticated control based on user identity, API keys, or request characteristics.
This lets you differentiate between premium and free-tier users, or between internal and external traffic.
The challenge is ensuring rate limiting stays responsive as traffic scales, because poorly implemented rate limiters sometimes become bottlenecks themselves.
Distributed rate limiting using Redis or similar shared state prevents users from bypassing limits by hitting different replicas.
Manual optimization is fine for small clusters but doesn’t scale to hundreds of applications and thousands of pods.
Purpose-built tools automate discovery, analysis, and remediation of cost issues while providing continuous monitoring.
These platforms typically combine resource usage metrics, cloud cost data, and Kubernetes configuration to identify specific optimization opportunities with projected savings.
AWS Cost Explorer, Azure Cost Management, and Google Cloud Cost Management provide basic visibility into infrastructure spending.
These work well for overall trends and comparing spending across services, but lack Kubernetes-specific context.
They show node costs but don’t map those costs to applications, teams, or business units running in the cluster.
Azure Kubernetes Service cost optimization and AWS Kubernetes cost optimization tools from the cloud providers themselves offer some cluster-level insights, but integration is often shallow.
The gap between cloud-level billing and application-level resource consumption is where visibility disappears.
Dedicated platforms like Komodor bridge the gap by pulling data from both Kubernetes and cloud billing APIs to create unified cost views.
A Kubernetes cost optimization platform typically offers features like cost allocation across namespaces, right-sizing recommendations, spot instance management, and abandoned resource detection.
The value increases with scale because manual analysis becomes impossible beyond a certain point.
Features that matter most include accurate cost allocation, actionable recommendations that don’t require weeks of analysis, and automation capabilities that implement fixes rather than just reporting problems.
Some platforms focus narrowly on cost, while others combine cost optimization with reliability and troubleshooting.
The latter is often more valuable because cost and reliability aren’t actually separate concerns, optimizing one without considering the other creates new problems.
Amazon EKS has specific cost characteristics worth understanding if you’re running clusters there.
EKS control plane costs $0.10 per hour per cluster, which seems small until you have dozens of clusters.
Consolidating workloads into fewer, larger clusters reduces control plane overhead but increases blast radius when things break.
The trade-off depends on your organizational structure and isolation requirements.
EKS Fargate eliminates node management but costs significantly more per pod than self-managed nodes or managed node groups.
Fargate makes sense for workloads with unpredictable scaling or where operational simplicity justifies higher costs.
For steady-state workloads, managed node groups with spot instances typically provide better price-performance.
EKS add-ons like the VPC CNI, CoreDNS, and kube-proxy have specific tuning options that affect resource usage.
The VPC CNI’s IP address management can constrain cluster size if not configured properly, and switching to prefix delegation mode increases IP efficiency.
EKS optimized AMIs include configurations that reduce overhead, but custom AMIs let you strip unused components for additional savings.
EC2 spot instances integrate well with EKS through spot instance interruption handling and cluster autoscaler configurations.
AWS Savings Plans apply to EKS nodes, and Compute Savings Plans are particularly flexible because they cover any EC2 usage.
Cross-region data transfer within AWS is cheaper than egress to the internet but still costs money, so topology-aware routing matters.
Using VPC endpoints for AWS services keeps traffic within the AWS network, avoiding egress charges for services like S3, ECR, and DynamoDB.
Azure Kubernetes Service control planes are free for clusters under certain size thresholds, then charged per cluster for larger deployments.
This makes multi-cluster strategies more attractive in AKS than EKS from a control plane cost perspective.
AKS node pools support multiple VM families, and choosing the right series for workload characteristics significantly impacts costs.
Compute-optimized F-series VMs cost less than general-purpose D-series for CPU-bound applications, while memory-optimized E-series suits data processing workloads.
Azure Spot VMs provide similar savings to AWS spot instances with comparable interruption characteristics.
The key difference is interruption notices, where Azure provides about 30 seconds warning.
Reserved VM instances in Azure offer up to 72% savings with three-year commitments, and instance size flexibility within a VM family simplifies capacity planning.
Azure Cost Management provides tagging and cost allocation features that integrate with AKS when you properly tag node pools and resources.
The challenge is maintaining consistent tagging as clusters evolve and ensuring tags propagate from Kubernetes resources to Azure billing.
Azure Policy can enforce required tags, preventing untagged resources from deploying and ensuring cost visibility stays intact.
Efficiency means more value per dollar spent, not necessarily spending less.
Sometimes increasing infrastructure costs improves efficiency if it enables higher-value work or reduces operational toil that costs more in engineering time.
The efficiency mindset focuses on outcomes like deployment velocity, time to market, and reduced MTTR rather than purely optimizing for minimum spend.
Platform teams are expensive because you need senior engineers with specialized Kubernetes and cloud expertise.
Optimizing their time generates more value than optimizing infrastructure costs in many cases.
If your platform team spends 40% of their time troubleshooting Kubernetes issues and managing TicketOps, that’s the inefficiency to attack first.
Automation that reduces toil and improves observability can justify infrastructure costs that seem high in isolation but enable platform teams to focus on higher-value work.
Self-service platforms that let developers deploy and manage their applications without platform team intervention reduce bottlenecks and scale better.
The infrastructure overhead of running these platforms is typically offset by reduced coordination costs and faster iteration cycles.
Internal developer platforms built on Kubernetes provide guardrails that prevent common cost waste, like enforcing resource quotas and requiring standard deployment patterns.
This is better than manual review of every deployment request, which scales poorly and frustrates everyone involved.
Cost optimization that degrades reliability just shifts expenses from infrastructure to incidents and lost revenue.
You need to find optimizations that maintain or improve reliability while reducing costs. This usually means removing waste rather than cutting muscle.
Applications designed for graceful degradation can tolerate more aggressive cost optimization because they handle resource constraints intelligently.
Circuit breakers, rate limiting, and queue-based architectures let you run closer to capacity limits without availability impact.
When load exceeds capacity, these systems shed non-critical requests or degrade features rather than failing completely.
This enables tighter resource packing and lower overhead because you don’t need as much headroom for worst-case scenarios.
Categorizing services by criticality allows different optimization strategies for different tiers.
Critical services get conservative resource allocation, on-demand instances, and generous monitoring.
Non-critical services can use aggressive spot instances, lower resource requests, and accept occasional disruption.
This focuses resources where reliability matters most while optimizing aggressively elsewhere.
The current state of Kubernetes cost optimization is fragmented.
Most organizations have partial visibility, manual processes, and reactive approaches triggered when finance escalates about unexpected bills.
Tooling has improved significantly over the past few years, but adoption lags because cost optimization is seen as a lower priority than reliability and velocity.
The reality is these concerns aren’t separate. Wasteful infrastructure creates an operational burden that slows teams down and introduces reliability risks.
Artificial intelligence and machine learning are starting to appear in cost optimization tools, analyzing patterns and making recommendations beyond simple rule-based approaches.
Kubernetes cost AI optimization promises autonomous right-sizing, predictive autoscaling, and anomaly detection without constant manual tuning.
The effectiveness varies, and many AI features are simple statistical analysis rebranded with trendy terminology.
Actual useful AI applications like AI SRE learn from specific environment behavior rather than generic models, adapting recommendations to your actual traffic patterns and application characteristics.
FinOps practices are maturing, treating infrastructure cost as an engineering concern rather than purely a finance problem.
Organizations building FinOps culture with shared visibility and accountability see better results than those that treat cost as someone else’s problem.
The biggest shift is recognizing that cost optimization isn’t a one-time project but an ongoing practice.
Infrastructure changes, applications evolve, traffic patterns shift, and cloud pricing updates constantly.
What was optimal six months ago probably isn’t anymore.
Continuous optimization requires automated discovery, regular review cycles, and cultural acceptance that optimization is part of normal engineering work.
Teams that build cost awareness into deployment processes, code review, and architecture decisions avoid accumulating waste that requires painful cleanup projects.
If you’re comparison shopping managed Kubernetes services purely on cost, GKE Autopilot and Digital Ocean Kubernetes are typically the cheapest for small to medium workloads.
GKE Autopilot eliminates node management overhead and charges only for pod resources, which can be more cost-effective than managing node pools.
The trade-off is less control over the underlying infrastructure and some workload compatibility limitations.
For self-managed clusters, Rancher or k3s on cheap VPS instances provides Kubernetes at minimal cost, but operational overhead likely exceeds savings unless you’re already comfortable managing everything manually.
The cheapest option isn’t always the best value when the total cost of ownership includes engineering time, operational complexity, and reliability risk.
Kubernetes cost management tools fall into several categories with different focuses and capabilities.
Cloud-native tools from AWS, Azure, and GCP provide basic cost visibility but lack deep Kubernetes integration.
Open source tools like KubeCost offer free core features with commercial options for advanced functionality.
Commercial platforms provide comprehensive cost management with support and enterprise features.
Tool selection should consider integration with existing systems, accuracy of cost allocation, ease of deployment, and ongoing maintenance burden.
Free or open source tools seem attractive but often require significant time investment to deploy, maintain, and actually use effectively.
Commercial tools cost money but reduce operational burden and typically provide better support when you need help.
The decision depends on team capacity, Kubernetes scale, and whether cost optimization is core to your business or just necessary infrastructure overhead.
Cost tools work best when integrated with existing observability and incident management platforms.
Correlating cost data with performance metrics and reliability data provides context that pure cost numbers lack.
Understanding that your cost spike correlates with a deployment or traffic pattern is more valuable than just knowing costs increased.
Integration with CI/CD pipelines enables cost impact analysis before deploying changes, catching expensive configurations before they hit production.
Sustainable cost optimization requires organizational commitment beyond implementing tools.
Without executive support and clear ownership, cost optimization becomes nobody’s job and nothing changes.
Someone needs to own cost optimization, whether that’s the platform team, the FinOps team, or a dedicated cost engineering role.
Shared responsibility without clear ownership means everyone assumes someone else is handling it until the bill arrives.
Effective ownership includes authority to make changes, visibility into spending, and metrics that matter to leadership.
Reporting cost savings in infrastructure terms doesn’t resonate with executives, translating to business impact like increased deployment capacity or reduced time to market gets attention.
Teams that consider cost implications during design and implementation prevent waste more effectively than after-the-fact optimization.
This requires education about cloud economics, visibility into team-level spending, and incentives that reward efficiency.
Gamification of cost reduction can work but risks perverse incentives where teams optimize metrics rather than actual efficiency.
Better is transparency and accountability without punishment, where teams see their costs and have agency to improve without fear.
Manual cost optimization doesn’t scale and isn’t sustainable.
Automation that continuously identifies and fixes cost issues provides ongoing value without constant human intervention.
Policy enforcement through admission controllers or policy engines prevents new waste from entering clusters in the first place.
Required resource requests, storage class restrictions, and namespace quotas enforced at deploy time are more effective than finding problems later.
You can’t optimize what you can’t see.
Comprehensive visibility into resource usage, costs, and efficiency metrics is a prerequisite for improvement.
This means instrumentation throughout your infrastructure, from cloud billing integration to application-level metrics.
Cost per request, cost per customer, cost per transaction, or other business-aligned metrics connect infrastructure spending to business value.
Raw infrastructure costs in dollars mean less than understanding unit economics.
If your cost per request is decreasing while total costs increase, that’s growth, not waste.
If cost per request is increasing, you have efficiency problems regardless of whether total spend is stable.
Cost dashboards need to serve multiple audiences with different information needs.
Engineers need detailed breakdowns by application and service to guide optimization work.
Leadership needs high-level trends, budget tracking, and business context.
Finance needs accurate cost allocation for chargeback or showback.
A single dashboard rarely serves all these needs well. Different views for different stakeholders reduces noise and increases relevance.
Kubernetes cost optimization is continuous work, not a solved problem.
The strategies in this article provide starting points, but every environment is different and requires adaptation to specific circumstances.
What matters most is establishing visibility, implementing automation, and building organizational practices that prevent waste from accumulating.
Komodor’s autonomous AI SRE platform addresses the full lifecycle of cloud-native operations, including proactive cost optimization alongside reliability and performance.
Instead of treating cost as separate from operational concerns, we integrate cost insights with troubleshooting, deployment tracking, and resource management.
This approach reduces the effort required to maintain Kubernetes infrastructure while improving both cost efficiency and reliability.
Our platform provides a comprehensive visualization of your Kubernetes environment, automated discovery of optimization opportunities, and actionable recommendations that consider both cost and reliability impact.
The Komodor team helps enterprises manage cloud-native infrastructure more effectively, reducing the specialized expertise required while maintaining control and visibility.
Let’s discuss how autonomous operations can transform your Kubernetes cost management from reactive firefighting to proactive optimization.
Overprovisioned resource requests consistently top the list. This happens because nobody wants to cause an outage, so everyone adds safety margin on top of safety margin.
The second biggest waste is orphaned resources: development environments running 24/7 despite zero usage outside business hours, PersistentVolumeClaims from deleted applications still consuming storage, and zombie services nobody’s certain they can safely delete.
Network egress costs surprise most teams because microservices architectures generate constant inter-service traffic, and cross-region transfers get expensive fast.
These are all fixable through right-sizing, automated cleanup policies, and topology-aware routing. Start by auditing actual resource utilization over a month and comparing it to requests. The gap usually funds your entire optimization project.
Organizations typically achieve 30-50% cost reduction through systematic optimization without sacrificing reliability.
The quick wins come from right-sizing overprovisioned workloads, implementing spot instances for appropriate workloads, and cleaning up orphaned resources. These deliver 20-30% savings in the first month.
Additional reductions require more sophisticated approaches like heterogeneous node pools, reserved instance commitments, and automated scaling policies, which compound over time.
Yes, with proper architecture. Spot instances work fine for production when you have automation that handles interruptions gracefully, diverse instance type selection across availability zones, and sufficient on-demand capacity as a stable base.
Running 50-70% of capacity on spot with on-demand backing is common for stateless services. The key is graceful degradation: when spot instances disappear, your system should shift load to remaining capacity without user-visible failures.
Native Kubernetes metrics and cloud provider billing get you maybe 20% of the way there. You can see CPU and memory usage through metrics-server and Prometheus, and cloud providers show total spending, but the gap between these creates blind spots.
Purpose-built tools become necessary around 10-20 clusters or 500+ engineers because manual analysis doesn’t scale.
Continuous automated optimization with quarterly human review works for most organizations. Automated tools should continuously identify and fix obvious waste like abandoned resources, with policies enforcing resource requests and quotas at deploy time.
Platform teams should review cost trends weekly during normal operations meetings, the same way you review error rates and latency.
Quarterly deep dives let you analyze bigger patterns, adjust reserved instance commitments, and refine optimization strategies based on changing workload characteristics.
The inflection point is usually around $10-20K monthly spend, which typically corresponds to 20-50 nodes or 100-200 pods, depending on instance types and workload density. Below this threshold, engineering time costs more than potential savings.
The exception is rapid growth scenarios where poor cost practices compound quickly. If your cluster spend is doubling every quarter, establish good patterns early before waste becomes institutional.
Share:
Gain instant visibility into your clusters and resolve issues faster.
