4 ms·
It's a bit strange to say the best part of Nomad is its ecosystem, then to go on to say it has 10x less contributors than Kubernetes. Additionally, one of the
by erulabs 8y ago
It's a bit strange to say the best part of Nomad is its ecosystem, then to go on to say it has 10x less contributors than Kubernetes.
Additionally, one of the benefits is... a lack of features?
> The entire point of Nomad is that it does less: it doesn’t include fine-grained rights management or advanced network policies, and that’s by design.
PodSecurityPolicies and advanced Network Policies are not a default or required part of Kubernetes, either...
- omn1 8y ago10x less contributors than Kubernetes is still over 200 contributors (actually more like 300 at this point). That's one of the bigger Open Source projects in my book. This number pales in comparison to Kubernetes, but show me a project which doesn't. That doesn't mean that the ecosystem is not vibrant, however. The HashiCorp stack is just more modular than Kubernetes. Consul and Vault are standalone products for example. With less functionality, it's harder to build a system which depends on features that only exist in a particular orchestrator. This makes it easier to replace Nomad with something better in the future. I'm not sure if I'd want to work on migrating Kubernetes clusters in five years. :)
- erulabs 8y agoSure, I get that, but saying its benefit is the ecosystem and then in the next paragraph saying its ~9x smaller than what its being compared to (hence where its benefits should shine...) Kube links services together via DNS. I'm not sure what part of it is tightly coupled really. Additionally, I make really great use of consul-k8s _and_ Vault. Not sure what they have to do with Nomad v K8s is all.
- shaklee3 8y agoThere's almost nothing proprietary about kubernetes. As the next post said, it uses dns. Which part are you referring to that it locks you into?