3 ms·
It is interesting to see the evolution of cluster scheduling at Google. Mostly, it has been driven by the desire to improve resource utilization - with a second
by jamesblonde 11y ago
It is interesting to see the evolution of cluster scheduling at Google. Mostly, it has been driven by the desire to improve resource utilization - with a second thought given to usability.
Their first go with Borg was centralized, correct, and enabled global state to make good scheduling decisions. Then they tried Omega, which never made it to production. But they subsequently separated scheduling from resource tracking in Borg (one scheduler node, ~5 paxos nodes handling resource notifications/communicating scheduling decisions with workers). Again, all optimizing utilization.
Kubernetes, however, is about making it easier for developers. So, one IP per pod - unlike Borg, where containers share the host IP. I like Kubernetes, but adoption has been slow. It will be interesting to see how it develops - whether it will subsume Mesos. How it will stack up against Hadoop/YARN.
- cpitman 11y agoMesos and Kubernetes are not really competitors, in so far as Kubernetes is more than just a scheduler and there is a partial implementation and work ongoing to get Mesos plugged in as a scheduler for Kubernetes: https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/docs/getting-started-guides/mesos.md https://github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes/blob/master/docs/ge... I'm hoping that Red Hat's two Kubernetes based products will help kickstart adoption. Red Hat Atomic Enterprise Platform is basically hardened and supported Kubernetes (https://github.com/projectatomic/atomic-enterprise https://github.com/projectatomic/atomic-enterprise) and OpenShift v3 is a PaaS built on top of Kubernetes (https://www.openshift.org/ https://www.openshift.org/). Disclaimer, I work for Red Hat. But any way, Kubernetes is awesome and could change the way data centers are run.