4 ms·
They are being compared as they are the main options for clustering and scheduling containers. I'd agree Kubernetes is at a higher level to the other options, o
by amouat 11y ago
They are being compared as they are the main options for clustering and scheduling containers. I'd agree Kubernetes is at a higher level to the other options, or at least comes with more features.
I'm not sure what you mean by "hosting external services reliably" - what's external and who is unreliable?
- amouat 11y agoHmm, I'll answer my own question - you mean has a load-balancer built in, don't you?
- KirinDave 11y agoAnd that doesn't recommend a comically brittle solution (as in marathon) or provide no facilities at all (as in swarm). There's nothing wrong with these decisions. It's just odd to compare this group. It makes me wonder how people are considering these options and in what context. You cannot field a reliable and available service to the outside world without this component. And the instrumentation and operationalization of this component is tricky.
- amouat 11y agoYeah, I agree that the load-balancer is important and not adequately addressed. I guess most people rig up their own set-up based on haproxy currently. I don't get why you think I can't compare that group though. What should I compare Kubernetes with? The group represents the various approaches to clustering and orchestration that most people will consider for container deployments. They are all slightly different, which is what makes for an interesting comparison.
- KirinDave 11y agoK8S pretty much stands on its own in the Docker ecosystem right now. I'm not aware of good alternatives that aren't comically janky as you described.