Register now
Kubernetes optimization helps reduce cloud waste and enhance performance by right-sizing resources, improving scheduling, and increasing cost visibility. By utilizing tools like autoscalers, proactive rightsizing, and AI-driven automation, organizations can optimize their Kubernetes environments for better efficiency and cost savings. Autonomy in resource management ensures continuous, adaptive optimization, allowing engineering teams to maintain performance while minimizing operational costs.
96% of enterprises are now running Kubernetes. Despite this ubiquity, many organizations struggle to run Kubernetes efficiently. Studies show that only 13% of the requested CPU is used on average, while 20–45% of requested resources actually power workloads. This gap translates into wasted infrastructure, inflated budgets, and unexpected carbon emissions.
Waste is not limited to Kubernetes clusters. BCG estimates that up to 30% of cloud spending is wasted due to over‑provisioned resources and idle services. Gartner projects that 90 percent of G2000 companies will adopt container‑management tools by 2027, which means the efficiency of these environments will become even more critical.
We’ve seen engineering leaders try to tackle this waste with policies, alerts, and autoscalers, and while those efforts help, they often fall short. Kubernetes isn’t static, and neither are the costs that come with it. That’s why the industry is shifting toward systems that don’t just automate but actually adapt, learn, and act in real time. In other words, autonomy.
This guide isn’t another “ten tips to save on Kubernetes” piece. It’s a practical look at how engineering teams can close the efficiency gap while setting the stage for autonomous systems to handle the complexity we know humans and static rules can’t.
Kubernetes optimization is the practice of aligning cluster and application resources with the real demand of workloads. It covers every layer of the stack: selecting node types and sizes that suit compute and memory profiles, calibrating CPU and memory requests for pods, balancing workloads across nodes to avoid fragmentation, trimming unused volumes and services, and connecting consumption to business metrics.
The goal is simple: use the right amount of infrastructure, no more and no less. This approach leads to delivering stable and responsive services. Data from observability tools, past traffic patterns, and business objectives drive these decisions, making optimization a continuous, iterative process rather than a one‑off exercise.
We see a lot of teams lump optimization and autoscaling together, but they’re not the same job. They address different aspects of resource management.
Autoscaling is reactive by design. Examples include Horizontal Pod Autoscaler (HPA), Vertical Pod Autoscaler (VPA), Cluster Autoscaler, and tools such as Karpenter. Autoscaling keeps services responsive during demand spikes, but does not guarantee that baseline resource levels are sensible. Autoscaling reacts. It doesn’t ask whether you were starting from the right place.
Optimization, on the other hand, is proactive. It’s about setting workloads up with sensible defaults: right-sizing pods, cleaning up unused infrastructure, improving bin-packing efficiency, and tuning configurations so the cluster is running lean without sacrificing performance. It uses historical and predictive data to decide how much compute, memory, storage, and network capacity services actually need. The aim is to achieve a steady‑state configuration that balances cost, performance, and reliability.
Effective optimization involves analytics to set resource requests accurately and ensure autoscalers start from a realistic baseline. To succeed in Kubernetes, organizations must combine both: optimization sets the stage, and autoscaling handles volatility.
Alt text:Why Inefficiency Persists in Kubernetes?
Kubernetes excels at orchestration and scalability, but cost-efficiency isn’t guaranteed out of the box. The way teams request, schedule, and manage resources often leaves clusters running with significant waste.
Several systemic issues contribute to waste in Kubernetes environments:
Understanding these drivers is the first step to addressing them.
Also Read: Kubernetes Autoscaling in 2025: Best Practices, Tools, and Optimization Strategies
Kubernetes costs are on the rise, with 68% of organizations seeing an increase, and half of them facing hikes of more than 20%. As these costs continue to grow, optimizing Kubernetes environments becomes essential.
The following best practices will help you optimize Kubernetes for both efficiency and reliability.
Alt text:Right‑size Nodes and Clusters
The foundation of Kubernetes efficiency is the cluster itself. If nodes and clusters aren’t tuned, no amount of workload-level tweaking will save the day.
Choose efficient instance types
Opt for node types that match the workload’s CPU‑to‑memory ratio. For steady workloads, use reserved or committed instances to lock in discounts. For bursty workloads, mix on‑demand and spot instances. Google’s Preemptible VMs, AWS Spot, and Azure Low‑Priority VMs provide deep discounts but may be interrupted. Use multiple node groups to isolate critical and non‑critical workloads.
Consolidate small clusters
Every cluster has overhead: control-plane services, networking, and monitoring. Spin up too many, and overhead costs can surpass actual compute spend. Combining workloads into fewer clusters reduces this friction, while managed platforms absorb some operational complexity.
We’ve repeatedly seen teams underestimate how much overhead multiplies when clusters proliferate, and it always hits the budget first.
Utilize dynamic cluster scaling
Tools like Cluster Autoscaler and Karpenter adjust node counts in response to demand, but they are reactive. Cluster Autoscaler works well when node groups are consistent, while Karpenter can select optimal instance types and scale across zones. The challenge isn’t the tool. It’s that scaling decisions are only as good as the starting configuration. Baseline requests that are too high or too conservative mean autoscalers either overshoot or lag behind demand.
Fine-tuning scale-up delays and scale-down cool-offs prevents thrashing, but even better is an autonomous approach that continuously recalibrates baselines and proactively balances nodes before autoscaling needs to react.
We’ve seen teams spend weeks tuning clusters only to watch pods quietly waste resources because CPU and memory requests were inflated by habit. Developers set high requests to avoid throttling, thinking it’s safe, but the result is bloated workloads that cost money without improving performance.
This is where most Kubernetes inefficiency quietly lives, and it’s also where small adjustments can yield outsized savings.
Set resource requests and limits based on actual usage
Looking at historical telemetry and observability data is critical. In many clusters, utilization hovers at 20-45%, far below what was requested, which means the default requests are often far too high.
Tools can suggest values based on past usage, but they’re only effective if the system can continuously adjust to shifting traffic patterns. Without that continuous recalibration, requests drift from reality, leaving workloads either starved or bloated.
Use Vertical and Horizontal Pod Autoscalers
HPA scales the number of pods based on metrics such as CPU, memory, or custom metrics. VPA adjusts CPU and memory requests for individual pods. Combining them can be challenging. VPA restarts pods when updating requests, but there are patterns (e.g., running VPA in “recommendation mode”) that allow safe integration. Multi‑metric HPA should consider memory, network I/O, and custom application metrics to prevent CPU‑only scaling from masking memory issues.
Adopt quality of service (QoS) classes
Kubernetes assigns QoS classes (Guaranteed, Burstable, Best‑Effort) based on requests and limits. Understanding QoS helps teams manage eviction policies and keep critical pods from being disrupted during node pressure. These classes are also used by the scheduler to prioritize which pods to schedule first and which to evict when resources are constrained. Critical system pods should be guaranteed to prevent eviction, while transient workloads can safely run as Best-Effort. Misclassifying pods can let a single runaway workload starve others, wasting both compute and money.
Alt text:Improve Scheduling and Bin‑Packing
Even with well-sized nodes and pods, Kubernetes efficiency depends on how workloads are placed. Smart scheduling and bin-packing strategies reduce fragmentation, improve resilience, and ensure workloads run where they can perform best.
Use pod affinity and anti‑affinity wisely
Pod affinity rules encourage pods to run together, while anti-affinity spreads them apart. Affinity rules influence the scheduler’s decision. For example, anti‑affinity can spread replicas across zones for availability, but too many constraints force the scheduler to place pods on underutilized nodes, creating fragmentation. The best practice is to apply affinity rules only where they directly support resilience or compliance, and periodically review them to simplify constraints.
Balance taints and tolerations
Taints prevent pods from running on certain nodes unless they explicitly tolerate the taint. This is useful for reserving GPU nodes or protecting high-priority workloads. Use them to reserve nodes for high‑priority workloads (e.g., GPU nodes) but avoid over‑tainting, which creates fragmentation. Tools such as the Kubernetes scheduler simulator (kube‑scheduler‑sim) can model the impact of scheduling policies.
Employ deschedulers and defragmentation
Kubernetes does not automatically rebalance pods after placement. This can leave some nodes overloaded while others sit idle. The Descheduler project evicts pods according to policies (e.g., low node utilization or spread constraints) to improve bin‑packing. Some teams use convex optimization algorithms or custom schedulers to pack pods even more efficiently, especially in large-scale, cost-sensitive environments.
Efficient storage and networking are critical to Kubernetes performance and cost optimization. Poorly managed storage can lead to excessive costs, while inefficient networking can result in slow performance or unexpected charges.
Clean up unused volumes and snapshots
Persistent volumes, snapshots, and object storage accumulate over time. Implement lifecycle policies to delete snapshots after a retention period. For block storage, choose the right volume type (e.g., gp3 over gp2 in AWS) and adjust provisioned IOPS to workload requirements.
Use appropriate storage classes
Fast SSD‑backed volumes are expensive. For logs or infrequently accessed data, use cheaper classes (e.g., S3 Standard‑IA or Glacier in AWS) and compress data before storage. Evaluate replication needs. Zone-redundant storage is more expensive and may not be necessary for every workload.
Network efficiency matters
Network egress charges and cross-AZ (Availability Zone) traffic can lead to unexpected costs. The best way to reduce these charges is to keep communication within the same zone whenever possible. Use internal load balancers to direct traffic between pods within the same region, which reduces cross-zone traffic.
Similarly, carefully evaluate the need for NAT gateways, as replacing them with private links or VPC peering can help avoid extra fees. Additionally, service meshes, which add sidecars to manage inter-service communication, can be helpful but should be used judiciously to avoid unnecessary overhead.
Alt text: Enforce Quotas and Accountability
Optimizing costs in Kubernetes is not limited to resource tuning. Without governance, engineers can optimize in isolation, only to create new inefficiencies elsewhere. Cost-conscious decisions need structure.
Apply namespace‑level quotas and limits
Resource quotas cap the total CPU, memory, and storage consumption within a namespace. They help prevent runaway environments and promote fair resource sharing among teams. When combined with LimitRanges, quotas guide developers toward realistic resource requests instead of default over-provisioning.
Allocate costs to teams
Tag workloads with labels (e.g., environment, team, application) and use tools that map cloud provider costs to Kubernetes objects. This makes inefficiencies visible: underutilized nodes, idle volumes, or oversized pods no longer hide in plain sight. Transparency creates accountability, and accountability drives better decisions.
Establish FinOps practices
Integrate engineers, finance, and product owners into a cross‑functional FinOps discipline. McKinsey’s research shows that integrating cost principles into infrastructure management, FinOps as code, can unlock about $120 billion in value, a savings of 10–20%. Embedding cost policies into code helps engineers see the budget impact when adjusting scaling thresholds.
Establish show-back and chargeback models to assign costs to the appropriate teams or projects. Regular cost reviews and setting up automated alerts when budgets are nearing limits can help enforce accountability and control. By establishing this cross-functional partnership, teams can focus on building features while maintaining budget discipline.
Different cloud providers offer unique features and optimizations that can significantly impact Kubernetes performance and cost efficiency. By understanding cloud-specific tools and pricing models, you can further fine-tune your Kubernetes environment.
GKE, EKS, AKS Features
Each managed Kubernetes service, Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE), Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS), and Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS), has capabilities that directly affect efficiency:
The key is aligning clusters with these features, so they work in harmony with your workloads rather than sitting unused. In our experience, many teams miss out on these efficiencies because they treat autoscaling or spot instances as a “set it and forget it” solution.
Discount Programs
Long-term commitments, like Reserved Instances or Committed Use Contracts, can yield significant savings. Spot and preemptible instances can provide up to 90% off on-demand prices, but they require careful orchestration. Balancing spot with on-demand and fine-tuning autoscaling policies ensures cost savings without introducing risk to critical workloads.
Multi-zone/Region Tradeoffs
When deploying Kubernetes across multiple regions or availability zones, you must balance latency and cost. Use affinity/anti-affinity rules to control pod placement and minimize egress traffic. For non-critical workloads, single-zone deployments reduce both network traffic and costs. Select cloud regions carefully, as pricing and egress costs vary by location.
Ultimately, these provider-specific features are only as effective as the intelligence behind their use. Manual tuning will always lag behind dynamic workload patterns. Autonomous systems that continuously analyze usage, predict demand, and adjust placement and instance types in real time turn these provider capabilities into measurable savings and reliable performance.
Multi-cluster deployments allow you to distribute workloads across geographically distributed clusters, ensuring high availability and disaster recovery. However, managing multiple clusters adds complexity, especially in terms of networking and monitoring.
Hybrid deployments, where some workloads run on on-premises clusters and others in the cloud, are becoming more common. By 2027, nearly 90% of organizations will be running a hybrid cloud. Optimizing across these environments requires careful orchestration. You can’t treat them as separate silos. Traffic routing, workload placement, and resource balancing become exponentially more complicated.
Tools like Istio and Anthos provide ways to manage multi-cloud traffic, while Federated Kubernetes can help coordinate workloads across clusters. Yet even with these platforms, efficiency depends on how dynamically workloads are managed. Static rules or manual adjustments are insufficient when traffic patterns and cluster availability fluctuate.
Security configurations in Kubernetes can sometimes lead to resource waste. Over-provisioning resources to meet security requirements, such as enabling overly permissive roles or running extra layers of encryption, can lead to inefficiencies.
Optimizing security doesn’t mean compromising on safety, but balancing the need for stringent security measures with the resources required to support them. Least privilege access, through finely tuned Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) policies, can minimize the number of resources needed for security, while Secrets Management solutions help ensure sensitive data is stored securely without unnecessarily increasing storage overhead.
Additionally, network policies and pod security policies help ensure that only necessary services can communicate with each other, which can reduce overhead caused by excess network traffic and improve the overall performance of the Kubernetes cluster.
Optimization delivers more than financial savings: it reduces carbon emissions and supports corporate sustainability goals. Accenture’s Green Cloud study finds that migrating to public cloud can cut carbon emissions by over 84% and deliver 30–40% total cost of ownership savings. Reducing over‑provisioned resources and consolidating clusters further decreases energy usage. Engineering leaders should consider environmental impact when designing optimization initiatives, particularly as regulators and customers increasingly scrutinize data‑center emissions.
For engineering teams, manually tuning Kubernetes clusters is no longer realistic. Manual adjustments to pod resources, scaling nodes, and balancing workloads result in constant firefighting, overspending, and inefficiencies. In complex, multi-cloud, or AI-heavy environments, manual optimization simply cannot keep pace with the dynamic demands of production workloads.
Many teams have adopted observability tools and automation frameworks to reduce toil. Horizontal Pod Autoscalers, Karpenter, and KEDA can adjust resources based on predefined thresholds, while some machine learning tools recommend optimized CPU, memory, and concurrency settings.
While these tools improve efficiency, they remain reactive. Automated systems follow rules or policies defined by engineers. They don’t anticipate changing workloads or novel patterns. For example, an HPA reacts to a CPU spike after it occurs but cannot preemptively scale resources based on predicted demand. Automation minimizes repetitive tasks, but it cannot think, learn, or balance cost, performance, and reliability proactively.
The critical distinction lies in intelligence and adaptability:
Many tools claim to be autonomous, but in reality, most are still rules-driven. They respond to predefined triggers, but they don’t anticipate changing workloads or evolving patterns.
They’re automated at best, but not autonomous. What sets Sedai apart is our patented reinforcement learning framework, which powers safe, self-improving decision-making at scale. When applied to Kubernetes, this means:
Sedai’s autonomous optimization spans compute, storage, and networking. It integrates with FinOps tools to provide unit‑cost metrics and directly measures cost reductions from each action. Engineering teams that trust Sedai’s autonomous cloud platform cite three core strengths:
Alt text:Three core strengths
Rather than simply adjusting pod counts based on CPU, Sedai’s platform acts as an intelligent operator that aligns scaling with business outcomes: performance, reliability, and cost.
Kubernetes optimization is a multifaceted discipline that encompasses proactive rightsizing, intelligent scheduling, storage and network efficiency, cost visibility, and modern AI techniques.
For engineering leaders, the path forward is clear. Combine proactive optimization with dynamic autoscaling, adopt FinOps practices to connect engineering decisions with business outcomes, and explore autonomous platforms that learn and act on your behalf.
This is why engineering teams complement these tools with autonomous systems like Sedai. By integrating Sedai, organizations maximize the potential of Kubernetes, resulting in improved performance, enhanced scalability, and better cost management across their cloud environments.
Join us and gain full visibility and control over your Kubernetes environment.
Autoscaling responds to demand fluctuations by adding or removing pods or nodes. It is reactive. Optimization is proactive: it determines the right baseline for CPU, memory, storage, and network resources by analyzing historical and predicted workloads. Effective optimization makes autoscaling more efficient by starting from a realistic baseline.
Establish clear performance objectives (e.g., 95th percentile latency) and show that reducing requests does not violate these objectives. Use canary deployments to validate new resource settings and roll back if issues arise. Continuous monitoring builds trust in the process and encourages teams to adopt right‑sizing.
Implement lifecycle policies that automatically delete obsolete snapshots and persistent volumes. Choose storage classes that align with data access patterns. Compress logs and archives. Evaluate replication needs; zone‑redundant storage is more expensive and may not always be necessary.
Given the pace of cloud and Kubernetes releases, evaluate your platform annually or when major business changes occur. Continuously monitor unit metrics such as cost per request and mean time to recovery; these will signal when adjustments are needed.
.webp)
September 9, 2024
September 29, 2025
Kubernetes optimization helps reduce cloud waste and enhance performance by right-sizing resources, improving scheduling, and increasing cost visibility. By utilizing tools like autoscalers, proactive rightsizing, and AI-driven automation, organizations can optimize their Kubernetes environments for better efficiency and cost savings. Autonomy in resource management ensures continuous, adaptive optimization, allowing engineering teams to maintain performance while minimizing operational costs.
96% of enterprises are now running Kubernetes. Despite this ubiquity, many organizations struggle to run Kubernetes efficiently. Studies show that only 13% of the requested CPU is used on average, while 20–45% of requested resources actually power workloads. This gap translates into wasted infrastructure, inflated budgets, and unexpected carbon emissions.
Waste is not limited to Kubernetes clusters. BCG estimates that up to 30% of cloud spending is wasted due to over‑provisioned resources and idle services. Gartner projects that 90 percent of G2000 companies will adopt container‑management tools by 2027, which means the efficiency of these environments will become even more critical.
We’ve seen engineering leaders try to tackle this waste with policies, alerts, and autoscalers, and while those efforts help, they often fall short. Kubernetes isn’t static, and neither are the costs that come with it. That’s why the industry is shifting toward systems that don’t just automate but actually adapt, learn, and act in real time. In other words, autonomy.
This guide isn’t another “ten tips to save on Kubernetes” piece. It’s a practical look at how engineering teams can close the efficiency gap while setting the stage for autonomous systems to handle the complexity we know humans and static rules can’t.
Kubernetes optimization is the practice of aligning cluster and application resources with the real demand of workloads. It covers every layer of the stack: selecting node types and sizes that suit compute and memory profiles, calibrating CPU and memory requests for pods, balancing workloads across nodes to avoid fragmentation, trimming unused volumes and services, and connecting consumption to business metrics.
The goal is simple: use the right amount of infrastructure, no more and no less. This approach leads to delivering stable and responsive services. Data from observability tools, past traffic patterns, and business objectives drive these decisions, making optimization a continuous, iterative process rather than a one‑off exercise.
We see a lot of teams lump optimization and autoscaling together, but they’re not the same job. They address different aspects of resource management.
Autoscaling is reactive by design. Examples include Horizontal Pod Autoscaler (HPA), Vertical Pod Autoscaler (VPA), Cluster Autoscaler, and tools such as Karpenter. Autoscaling keeps services responsive during demand spikes, but does not guarantee that baseline resource levels are sensible. Autoscaling reacts. It doesn’t ask whether you were starting from the right place.
Optimization, on the other hand, is proactive. It’s about setting workloads up with sensible defaults: right-sizing pods, cleaning up unused infrastructure, improving bin-packing efficiency, and tuning configurations so the cluster is running lean without sacrificing performance. It uses historical and predictive data to decide how much compute, memory, storage, and network capacity services actually need. The aim is to achieve a steady‑state configuration that balances cost, performance, and reliability.
Effective optimization involves analytics to set resource requests accurately and ensure autoscalers start from a realistic baseline. To succeed in Kubernetes, organizations must combine both: optimization sets the stage, and autoscaling handles volatility.
Alt text:Why Inefficiency Persists in Kubernetes?
Kubernetes excels at orchestration and scalability, but cost-efficiency isn’t guaranteed out of the box. The way teams request, schedule, and manage resources often leaves clusters running with significant waste.
Several systemic issues contribute to waste in Kubernetes environments:
Understanding these drivers is the first step to addressing them.
Also Read: Kubernetes Autoscaling in 2025: Best Practices, Tools, and Optimization Strategies
Kubernetes costs are on the rise, with 68% of organizations seeing an increase, and half of them facing hikes of more than 20%. As these costs continue to grow, optimizing Kubernetes environments becomes essential.
The following best practices will help you optimize Kubernetes for both efficiency and reliability.
Alt text:Right‑size Nodes and Clusters
The foundation of Kubernetes efficiency is the cluster itself. If nodes and clusters aren’t tuned, no amount of workload-level tweaking will save the day.
Choose efficient instance types
Opt for node types that match the workload’s CPU‑to‑memory ratio. For steady workloads, use reserved or committed instances to lock in discounts. For bursty workloads, mix on‑demand and spot instances. Google’s Preemptible VMs, AWS Spot, and Azure Low‑Priority VMs provide deep discounts but may be interrupted. Use multiple node groups to isolate critical and non‑critical workloads.
Consolidate small clusters
Every cluster has overhead: control-plane services, networking, and monitoring. Spin up too many, and overhead costs can surpass actual compute spend. Combining workloads into fewer clusters reduces this friction, while managed platforms absorb some operational complexity.
We’ve repeatedly seen teams underestimate how much overhead multiplies when clusters proliferate, and it always hits the budget first.
Utilize dynamic cluster scaling
Tools like Cluster Autoscaler and Karpenter adjust node counts in response to demand, but they are reactive. Cluster Autoscaler works well when node groups are consistent, while Karpenter can select optimal instance types and scale across zones. The challenge isn’t the tool. It’s that scaling decisions are only as good as the starting configuration. Baseline requests that are too high or too conservative mean autoscalers either overshoot or lag behind demand.
Fine-tuning scale-up delays and scale-down cool-offs prevents thrashing, but even better is an autonomous approach that continuously recalibrates baselines and proactively balances nodes before autoscaling needs to react.
We’ve seen teams spend weeks tuning clusters only to watch pods quietly waste resources because CPU and memory requests were inflated by habit. Developers set high requests to avoid throttling, thinking it’s safe, but the result is bloated workloads that cost money without improving performance.
This is where most Kubernetes inefficiency quietly lives, and it’s also where small adjustments can yield outsized savings.
Set resource requests and limits based on actual usage
Looking at historical telemetry and observability data is critical. In many clusters, utilization hovers at 20-45%, far below what was requested, which means the default requests are often far too high.
Tools can suggest values based on past usage, but they’re only effective if the system can continuously adjust to shifting traffic patterns. Without that continuous recalibration, requests drift from reality, leaving workloads either starved or bloated.
Use Vertical and Horizontal Pod Autoscalers
HPA scales the number of pods based on metrics such as CPU, memory, or custom metrics. VPA adjusts CPU and memory requests for individual pods. Combining them can be challenging. VPA restarts pods when updating requests, but there are patterns (e.g., running VPA in “recommendation mode”) that allow safe integration. Multi‑metric HPA should consider memory, network I/O, and custom application metrics to prevent CPU‑only scaling from masking memory issues.
Adopt quality of service (QoS) classes
Kubernetes assigns QoS classes (Guaranteed, Burstable, Best‑Effort) based on requests and limits. Understanding QoS helps teams manage eviction policies and keep critical pods from being disrupted during node pressure. These classes are also used by the scheduler to prioritize which pods to schedule first and which to evict when resources are constrained. Critical system pods should be guaranteed to prevent eviction, while transient workloads can safely run as Best-Effort. Misclassifying pods can let a single runaway workload starve others, wasting both compute and money.
Alt text:Improve Scheduling and Bin‑Packing
Even with well-sized nodes and pods, Kubernetes efficiency depends on how workloads are placed. Smart scheduling and bin-packing strategies reduce fragmentation, improve resilience, and ensure workloads run where they can perform best.
Use pod affinity and anti‑affinity wisely
Pod affinity rules encourage pods to run together, while anti-affinity spreads them apart. Affinity rules influence the scheduler’s decision. For example, anti‑affinity can spread replicas across zones for availability, but too many constraints force the scheduler to place pods on underutilized nodes, creating fragmentation. The best practice is to apply affinity rules only where they directly support resilience or compliance, and periodically review them to simplify constraints.
Balance taints and tolerations
Taints prevent pods from running on certain nodes unless they explicitly tolerate the taint. This is useful for reserving GPU nodes or protecting high-priority workloads. Use them to reserve nodes for high‑priority workloads (e.g., GPU nodes) but avoid over‑tainting, which creates fragmentation. Tools such as the Kubernetes scheduler simulator (kube‑scheduler‑sim) can model the impact of scheduling policies.
Employ deschedulers and defragmentation
Kubernetes does not automatically rebalance pods after placement. This can leave some nodes overloaded while others sit idle. The Descheduler project evicts pods according to policies (e.g., low node utilization or spread constraints) to improve bin‑packing. Some teams use convex optimization algorithms or custom schedulers to pack pods even more efficiently, especially in large-scale, cost-sensitive environments.
Efficient storage and networking are critical to Kubernetes performance and cost optimization. Poorly managed storage can lead to excessive costs, while inefficient networking can result in slow performance or unexpected charges.
Clean up unused volumes and snapshots
Persistent volumes, snapshots, and object storage accumulate over time. Implement lifecycle policies to delete snapshots after a retention period. For block storage, choose the right volume type (e.g., gp3 over gp2 in AWS) and adjust provisioned IOPS to workload requirements.
Use appropriate storage classes
Fast SSD‑backed volumes are expensive. For logs or infrequently accessed data, use cheaper classes (e.g., S3 Standard‑IA or Glacier in AWS) and compress data before storage. Evaluate replication needs. Zone-redundant storage is more expensive and may not be necessary for every workload.
Network efficiency matters
Network egress charges and cross-AZ (Availability Zone) traffic can lead to unexpected costs. The best way to reduce these charges is to keep communication within the same zone whenever possible. Use internal load balancers to direct traffic between pods within the same region, which reduces cross-zone traffic.
Similarly, carefully evaluate the need for NAT gateways, as replacing them with private links or VPC peering can help avoid extra fees. Additionally, service meshes, which add sidecars to manage inter-service communication, can be helpful but should be used judiciously to avoid unnecessary overhead.
Alt text: Enforce Quotas and Accountability
Optimizing costs in Kubernetes is not limited to resource tuning. Without governance, engineers can optimize in isolation, only to create new inefficiencies elsewhere. Cost-conscious decisions need structure.
Apply namespace‑level quotas and limits
Resource quotas cap the total CPU, memory, and storage consumption within a namespace. They help prevent runaway environments and promote fair resource sharing among teams. When combined with LimitRanges, quotas guide developers toward realistic resource requests instead of default over-provisioning.
Allocate costs to teams
Tag workloads with labels (e.g., environment, team, application) and use tools that map cloud provider costs to Kubernetes objects. This makes inefficiencies visible: underutilized nodes, idle volumes, or oversized pods no longer hide in plain sight. Transparency creates accountability, and accountability drives better decisions.
Establish FinOps practices
Integrate engineers, finance, and product owners into a cross‑functional FinOps discipline. McKinsey’s research shows that integrating cost principles into infrastructure management, FinOps as code, can unlock about $120 billion in value, a savings of 10–20%. Embedding cost policies into code helps engineers see the budget impact when adjusting scaling thresholds.
Establish show-back and chargeback models to assign costs to the appropriate teams or projects. Regular cost reviews and setting up automated alerts when budgets are nearing limits can help enforce accountability and control. By establishing this cross-functional partnership, teams can focus on building features while maintaining budget discipline.
Different cloud providers offer unique features and optimizations that can significantly impact Kubernetes performance and cost efficiency. By understanding cloud-specific tools and pricing models, you can further fine-tune your Kubernetes environment.
GKE, EKS, AKS Features
Each managed Kubernetes service, Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE), Amazon Elastic Kubernetes Service (EKS), and Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS), has capabilities that directly affect efficiency:
The key is aligning clusters with these features, so they work in harmony with your workloads rather than sitting unused. In our experience, many teams miss out on these efficiencies because they treat autoscaling or spot instances as a “set it and forget it” solution.
Discount Programs
Long-term commitments, like Reserved Instances or Committed Use Contracts, can yield significant savings. Spot and preemptible instances can provide up to 90% off on-demand prices, but they require careful orchestration. Balancing spot with on-demand and fine-tuning autoscaling policies ensures cost savings without introducing risk to critical workloads.
Multi-zone/Region Tradeoffs
When deploying Kubernetes across multiple regions or availability zones, you must balance latency and cost. Use affinity/anti-affinity rules to control pod placement and minimize egress traffic. For non-critical workloads, single-zone deployments reduce both network traffic and costs. Select cloud regions carefully, as pricing and egress costs vary by location.
Ultimately, these provider-specific features are only as effective as the intelligence behind their use. Manual tuning will always lag behind dynamic workload patterns. Autonomous systems that continuously analyze usage, predict demand, and adjust placement and instance types in real time turn these provider capabilities into measurable savings and reliable performance.
Multi-cluster deployments allow you to distribute workloads across geographically distributed clusters, ensuring high availability and disaster recovery. However, managing multiple clusters adds complexity, especially in terms of networking and monitoring.
Hybrid deployments, where some workloads run on on-premises clusters and others in the cloud, are becoming more common. By 2027, nearly 90% of organizations will be running a hybrid cloud. Optimizing across these environments requires careful orchestration. You can’t treat them as separate silos. Traffic routing, workload placement, and resource balancing become exponentially more complicated.
Tools like Istio and Anthos provide ways to manage multi-cloud traffic, while Federated Kubernetes can help coordinate workloads across clusters. Yet even with these platforms, efficiency depends on how dynamically workloads are managed. Static rules or manual adjustments are insufficient when traffic patterns and cluster availability fluctuate.
Security configurations in Kubernetes can sometimes lead to resource waste. Over-provisioning resources to meet security requirements, such as enabling overly permissive roles or running extra layers of encryption, can lead to inefficiencies.
Optimizing security doesn’t mean compromising on safety, but balancing the need for stringent security measures with the resources required to support them. Least privilege access, through finely tuned Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) policies, can minimize the number of resources needed for security, while Secrets Management solutions help ensure sensitive data is stored securely without unnecessarily increasing storage overhead.
Additionally, network policies and pod security policies help ensure that only necessary services can communicate with each other, which can reduce overhead caused by excess network traffic and improve the overall performance of the Kubernetes cluster.
Optimization delivers more than financial savings: it reduces carbon emissions and supports corporate sustainability goals. Accenture’s Green Cloud study finds that migrating to public cloud can cut carbon emissions by over 84% and deliver 30–40% total cost of ownership savings. Reducing over‑provisioned resources and consolidating clusters further decreases energy usage. Engineering leaders should consider environmental impact when designing optimization initiatives, particularly as regulators and customers increasingly scrutinize data‑center emissions.
For engineering teams, manually tuning Kubernetes clusters is no longer realistic. Manual adjustments to pod resources, scaling nodes, and balancing workloads result in constant firefighting, overspending, and inefficiencies. In complex, multi-cloud, or AI-heavy environments, manual optimization simply cannot keep pace with the dynamic demands of production workloads.
Many teams have adopted observability tools and automation frameworks to reduce toil. Horizontal Pod Autoscalers, Karpenter, and KEDA can adjust resources based on predefined thresholds, while some machine learning tools recommend optimized CPU, memory, and concurrency settings.
While these tools improve efficiency, they remain reactive. Automated systems follow rules or policies defined by engineers. They don’t anticipate changing workloads or novel patterns. For example, an HPA reacts to a CPU spike after it occurs but cannot preemptively scale resources based on predicted demand. Automation minimizes repetitive tasks, but it cannot think, learn, or balance cost, performance, and reliability proactively.
The critical distinction lies in intelligence and adaptability:
Many tools claim to be autonomous, but in reality, most are still rules-driven. They respond to predefined triggers, but they don’t anticipate changing workloads or evolving patterns.
They’re automated at best, but not autonomous. What sets Sedai apart is our patented reinforcement learning framework, which powers safe, self-improving decision-making at scale. When applied to Kubernetes, this means:
Sedai’s autonomous optimization spans compute, storage, and networking. It integrates with FinOps tools to provide unit‑cost metrics and directly measures cost reductions from each action. Engineering teams that trust Sedai’s autonomous cloud platform cite three core strengths:
Alt text:Three core strengths
Rather than simply adjusting pod counts based on CPU, Sedai’s platform acts as an intelligent operator that aligns scaling with business outcomes: performance, reliability, and cost.
Kubernetes optimization is a multifaceted discipline that encompasses proactive rightsizing, intelligent scheduling, storage and network efficiency, cost visibility, and modern AI techniques.
For engineering leaders, the path forward is clear. Combine proactive optimization with dynamic autoscaling, adopt FinOps practices to connect engineering decisions with business outcomes, and explore autonomous platforms that learn and act on your behalf.
This is why engineering teams complement these tools with autonomous systems like Sedai. By integrating Sedai, organizations maximize the potential of Kubernetes, resulting in improved performance, enhanced scalability, and better cost management across their cloud environments.
Join us and gain full visibility and control over your Kubernetes environment.
Autoscaling responds to demand fluctuations by adding or removing pods or nodes. It is reactive. Optimization is proactive: it determines the right baseline for CPU, memory, storage, and network resources by analyzing historical and predicted workloads. Effective optimization makes autoscaling more efficient by starting from a realistic baseline.
Establish clear performance objectives (e.g., 95th percentile latency) and show that reducing requests does not violate these objectives. Use canary deployments to validate new resource settings and roll back if issues arise. Continuous monitoring builds trust in the process and encourages teams to adopt right‑sizing.
Implement lifecycle policies that automatically delete obsolete snapshots and persistent volumes. Choose storage classes that align with data access patterns. Compress logs and archives. Evaluate replication needs; zone‑redundant storage is more expensive and may not always be necessary.
Given the pace of cloud and Kubernetes releases, evaluate your platform annually or when major business changes occur. Continuously monitor unit metrics such as cost per request and mean time to recovery; these will signal when adjustments are needed.
.svg)
.svg)
%201.svg)
%202.svg)
.svg)
