The Cost Optimization Hierarchy#

Cloud cost optimization follows a hierarchy of impact. Work from the top down – fixing the wrong tier of commitment discount matters far less than shutting down resources nobody uses.

1. Eliminate waste – turn off unused resources, delete orphaned storage
2. Right-size – match instance sizes to actual usage
3. Use commitment discounts – reserved instances, savings plans, CUDs
4. Shift to spot/preemptible – for fault-tolerant workloads
5. Optimize storage and network – tiering, transfer patterns, caching
6. Architect for cost – serverless, auto-scaling, multi-region strategy

Eliminating Waste#

The fastest cost reduction comes from finding resources that serve no purpose. Every cloud provider accumulates these: instances left running after a test, snapshots from decommissioned servers, load balancers with no backends, unattached disks.

Kubernetes FinOps: Decision Framework for Cost Optimization#

FinOps in Kubernetes is the practice of bringing financial accountability to infrastructure spending. The challenge is not a lack of cost-saving techniques – it is knowing which ones to apply first, which combinations work together, and which ones introduce risk that outweighs the savings. This article provides a structured decision framework for selecting and prioritizing Kubernetes cost optimization strategies.

The Five Optimization Levers#

Every Kubernetes cost optimization effort works across five levers. Each has a different risk profile, implementation effort, and savings ceiling.

Kubernetes Cost Optimization#

Most Kubernetes clusters run at 15-30% actual CPU utilization but are billed for the full provisioned capacity. The gap between what you reserve and what you use is pure waste. This article covers the practical workflow for finding and eliminating that waste.

The Cost Problem: Requests vs Actual Usage#

Kubernetes resource requests are the foundation of cost. When a pod requests 4 CPUs, the scheduler reserves 4 CPUs on a node regardless of whether the pod ever uses more than 0.1 CPU. The node is sized (and billed) based on what is reserved, not what is consumed.