# Cost Efficiency
Cost attribution and resource tuning can be one of the most difficult and tedious parts of running Kubernetes at scale. Fairwinds Insights provides some features to help make this process simpler and more automated.
The first step is to start mapping CPU and memory usage back to dollars. This is a very difficult problem (opens new window) and inevitably somewhat subjective: how should we rank a CPU-intensive application against a memory-intensive application? In order to accurately attribute cost, we have to find ways of comparing apples to oranges.
To help us best estimate workload costs in your cluster, we ask for a few pieces of information the first time you visit the Workloads page: your average node size, your average node cost, and the strategy you'd like to use for workload estimation (more on that below).
We've pre-populated a list of instance types from AWS and GCP, but you can also set custom numbers if you're running on a different cloud provider or if you're using spot instances. If you have multiple node types in your cluster, use the most representative type.
These numbers don't have to be perfectly accurate - they simply give us a baseline for converting memory and CPU to dollars. Namely, we will take the cost per node-hour, and attribute half that cost to memory, and half to CPU. By dividing those numbers by the amount of memory and CPU in a single node, we can come to per-CPU and per-GB-memory costs.
To determine the cost of a particular workload, we offer two strategies:
- conservative - this takes into account the potential waste incurred by
memory or CPU intensive workloads, if Kubernetes is unable to bin-pack efficiently.
It is calculated as
2 * max(cpu_cost, memory_cost)
- optimistic - this assumes Kubernetes can bin-pack your workloads efficiently.
It is calculated as
cpu_cost + memory_cost
If you have spent time optimizing your node size, or if you're running a large variety of workloads that are small relative to your node size, the optimistic strategy will probably be more accurate. Otherwise, we recommend the conservative strategy.
# Viewing Workload Costs
On the Workloads page, you can see a list of all the workloads in your cluster. By default, they'll be sorted by their Average Total Cost. This number utilizes resource requests and limits (if specified), and average pod count to estimate the average cost of each workload.
In the next column, you'll see Total Costs with Recommendations, followed by Cost Difference with Recommendations.
If you're not seeing values in these fields, make sure the
goldilocks report is installed and
Goldilocks analyzes actual resource usage for your
Deployments, and makes recommendations for
how much memory and CPU you should be setting for your requests and limits. While it may recommend
moving resources up or down, we typically find that teams have set resources too high, since
workloads with resources that are too low will experience noticeable performance issues.
If you notice a workload with substantial savings available, you can click into it to see what Goldilocks recommends you set your resource requests and limits to:
Here, Goldilocks has recommended that we change our memory requests and limits from
263M (a savings of around 75%), and our CPU requests and limits from
25m, for a savings
Note that these recommendations should be sanity checked by the user. If your application experiences periodic bursts in traffic, you may want to keep your limits relatively high. For mission-critical applications, it's wise to make any reduction in resources gradually, monitoring your application for any degradation in performance along the way.
It's also good to let Goldilocks gather usage data for 1-7 days before taking its recommendations. Without a good, representative baseline for actual resource usage, Goldilocks won't be able to make confident recommendations.