Evaluating Kubernetes Progressive Delivery in Constrained Environments Flagger vs. Argo Rollouts
DOI:
10.33395/sinkron.v10i3.16201Keywords:
automated incident mitigation, canary deployment, edge computing, Flagger, Kubernetes, progressive delivery, resource-constrained environmentAbstract
Cloud‑native progressive delivery orchestrators reduce deployment risk by automating canary deployment rollback procedures, dramatically reducing mean time to recover from deployment failures. However, existing research predominantly evaluates these tools in hyperscale environments, masking the transient computational overhead they introduce in resource‑constrained edge deployments. This study empirically evaluates and compares the automated incident mitigation latency and computational resource volatility of Flagger and Argo Rollouts within a strictly resource‑constrained Kubernetes environment. A low virtual central processing unit Kubernetes testbed was provisioned using Talos Linux with strict hypervisor‑level central processing unit pinning, simulating edge computing conditions. Deterministic fault injection spanning four fault classes, two workload runtimes, and two network topology configurations was executed across thirty trials. A Shapiro-Wilk normality assessment, Welch t-test, Mann-Whitney U test, Cohen's d, and 95% confidence intervals were applied to compare temporal and computational metrics. Memory utilization remained statically bounded, averaging 24.01 megabytes for Flagger and 35.47 megabytes for Argo Rollouts. Under standard fault conditions, neither orchestrator demonstrated a consistent temporal advantage. However, under memory exhaustion progressing to CrashLoopBackOff, Argo Rollouts recovered in a mean of 29.67 seconds against Flagger's 166.79 seconds, a statistically significant 5.6-fold degradation with a large effect size. Argo Rollouts sustained transient central processing unit surges of 159 to 168 millicpu against Flagger's bounded ceiling of 17 to 18 millicpu. Progressive delivery automation introduces non‑negligible and fault-type-dependent computational overhead in resource‑constrained environments. Flagger is recommended for strict resource predictability in threshold-breach environments, while Argo Rollouts is recommended where broader fault-type resilience is operationally critical.
Downloads
References
Amaro, R., Pereira, R., & Silva, M. M. da. (2025). Mapping DevOps capabilities to the software life cycle: A systematic literature review. Information and Software Technology, 177, 107583. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2024.107583
Deng, S., Zhao, H., Huang, B., Zhang, C., Chen, F., Deng, Y., … Zomaya, A. Y. (2024). Cloud-Native Computing: A Survey From the Perspective of Services. Proceedings of the IEEE, 112(1), 12–46. https://doi.org/10.1109/JPROC.2024.3353855
Malhotra, A., Elsayed, A., Torres, R., & Venkatraman, S. (2024). Evaluate Canary Deployment Techniques Using Kubernetes, Istio, and Liquibase for Cloud Native Enterprise Applications to Achieve Zero Downtime for Continuous Deployments. IEEE Access, 12, 87883–87899. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2024.3416087
Shen, S., Feng, Y., Xu, M., Ren, Y., Wang, X., Leung, V. C. M., & Wang, W. (2024). Tango: Harmonious Optimization for Mixed Services in Kubernetes-Based Edge Clouds. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 17(6), 4354–4367. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSC.2024.3479926
Zhao, C., He, M., Luo, S., Li, B., & Wu, L. (2025). Research on Dynamic Monitoring and Fault Recovery Mechanism for Container Orchestration Platforms. 2025 7th International Conference on Next Generation Data-Driven Networks (NGDN), 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1109/NGDN66208.2025.11182115
Turin, G., Borgarelli, A., Donetti, S., Damiani, F., Johnsen, E. B., & Tapia Tarifa, S. L. (2023). Predicting resource consumption of Kubernetes container systems using resource models. Journal of Systems and Software, 203, 111750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2023.111750
Ghosh, S., Mavromatis, I., Antonakoglou, K., & Katsaros, K. (2025). Performance Evaluation of Intent-Based Networking Scenarios: A GitOps and Nephio Approach. 2025 IEEE Conference on Standards for Communications and Networking (CSCN), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCN67557.2025.11230760
Aqasizade, H., Ataie, E., & Bastam, M. (2025). Kubernetes in Action: Exploring the Performance of Kubernetes Distributions in the Cloud. Software: Practice and Experience, 55(10), 1711–1725. https://doi.org/10.1002/spe.70000
Sathish, P., Avula, S. R., B U, D., & Bhat, A. G. (2025). Bridging the Benchmarking Gap: Performance Evaluation of Popular Kubernates-Based Orchestration Frameworks. 2025 International Conference on Computing Technologies & Data Communication (ICCTDC), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCTDC64446.2025.11159041
Sebrechts, M., Ramlot, T., Borny, S., Goethals, T., Volckaert, B., & De Turck, F. (2022). Adapting Kubernetes controllers to the edge: on-demand control planes using Wasm and WASI. 2022 IEEE 11th International Conference on Cloud Networking (CloudNet), 195–202. https://doi.org/10.1109/CloudNet55617.2022.9978884
Liang, Y., Govindan, R., & Park, S. J. (2025). Granular Resource Demand Heterogeneity. Proceedings of the 2025 Workshop on Hot Topics in Operating Systems, 187–194. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3713082.3730379
Navarro, A. S., Garcia-Pineda, M., & Gutierrez-Aguado, J. (2024). PodInsights: a millisecond pod metric collector for Kubernetes. Proceedings of the 12th Euro American Conference on Telematics and Information Systems, 1–4. Praia Cape Verde: ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3685243.3685281
Mondal, S. K., Zheng, Z., & Cheng, Y. (2024). On the Optimization of Kubernetes toward the Enhancement of Cloud Computing. Mathematics, 12(16), 2476. https://doi.org/10.3390/math12162476
Zhang, G., Guo, W., Tan, Z., Guan, Q., & Jiang, H. (2025). KIS-S: A GPU-Aware Kubernetes Inference Simulator with RL-Based Auto-Scaling. 2025 IEEE International Performance, Computing, and Communications Conference (IPCCC), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCCC66453.2025.11304654
Muro, F., Baena, E., Fortes, S., Nielsen, L., & Barco, R. (2023). Noisy Neighbour Impact Assessment and Prevention in Virtualized Mobile Networks. IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management, 20(1), 415–425. https://doi.org/10.1109/TNSM.2022.3194137
Veitch, P., MacNamara, C., & Browne, J. J. (2025). CPU Pinning Impact on Performance and Power Consumption of Mixed Workloads at Edge. 2025 28th Conference on Innovation in Clouds, Internet and Networks (ICIN), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIN64016.2025.10942678
Khamdani, A. R., Muslikh, A. R., & Affandi, A. S. (2025). COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PERFORMANCE AND EFFICIENCY OF LOAD BALANCING ALGORITHMS ON INGRESS CONTROLLER. Jurnal Teknik Informatika (Jutif), 6(1), 453–468. https://doi.org/10.52436/1.jutif.2025.6.1.4040
Nurmadewi, D., Mulyadi, Y. R., & Al Hakim, S. (2025). Comparative Study of PRTG and Grafana-Prometheus for Monitoring Information Technology Infrastructure. 2025 IEEE 2nd International Conference on Cryptography, Informatics, and Cybersecurity (ICoCICs), 452–457. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICoCICs68032.2025.11384063
Huang, C.-K., & Pierre, G. (2024). Aggregate Monitoring for Geo-Distributed Kubernetes Cluster Federations. IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing, 12(4), 1449–1462. https://doi.org/10.1109/TCC.2024.3482574
Hsu, K.-J., Bhardwaj, K., & Gavrilovska, A. (2024). Colibri: Efficient Collection of Fine-Grained Resource Metrics Necessary for Mobile Edge Computing. 2024 IEEE/ACM Symposium on Edge Computing (SEC), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1109/SEC62691.2024.00011
Delacre, M., Lakens, D., & Leys, C. (2017). Why Psychologists Should by Default Use Welch’s t-test Instead of Student’s t-test. International Review of Social Psychology, 30(1), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.82
Flagger. (2025). How it works. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://docs.flagger.app/usage/how-it-works
Argo Rollouts. (2025). Architecture — Kubernetes Progressive Delivery Controller. Retrieved May 11, 2026, from https://argo-rollouts.readthedocs.io/en/stable/architecture/
Schmidt, H., Rejiba, Z., Eidenbenz, R., & Förster, K.-T. (2023). Transparent Fault Tolerance for Stateful Applications in Kubernetes with Checkpoint/Restore. 2023 42nd International Symposium on Reliable Distributed Systems (SRDS), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1109/SRDS60354.2023.00022
Wyciślik, Ł., Latusik, Ł., & Kamińska, A. M. (2023). A Comparative Assessment of JVM Frameworks to Develop Microservices. Applied Sciences, 13(3), 1343. https://doi.org/10.3390/app13031343
Suryayusra, S., Destarina, N., Negara, E. S., Supratman, E., & Ulfa, M. (2024). Implementation Docker and Kubernetes Scaling Using Horizontal Scaler Method for Wordpress Services. Sinkron, 8(4), 2192–2196. https://doi.org/10.33395/sinkron.v8i4.14091
Gajanin, R., Marcelino, C., & Nastic, S. (2025). Performance Isolation for Serverless Functions. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 18(6), 4408–4424. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSC.2025.3619151
Zhu, X., She, G., Xue, B., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Y., Zou, X. K., … Mahajan, R. (2023). Dissecting Overheads of Service Mesh Sidecars. Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing, 142–157. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3620678.3624652
Elkhatib, Y., & Poyato, J. P. (2023). An Evaluation of Service Mesh Frameworks for Edge Systems. Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Edge Systems, Analytics and Networking, 19–24. New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3578354.3592867
Downloads
|
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Gagah Syuja Saka Abdullah, Rama Aria Megantara
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Muhammad Khoiruddin harahap
Google Scholar 
Moraref
PKP Index
Garuda Kemdikbud
Indonesia OneSearch
OCLC Worldcat
Dimensions
Index Copernicus
Scilit
