Abstract
(1) Background: Container orchestration frameworks provide support for management of complex distributed applications. Different frameworks have emerged only recently, and they have been in constant evolution as new features are being introduced. This reality makes it difficult for practitioners and researchers to maintain a clear view of the technology space. (2) Methods: we present a descriptive feature comparison study of the three most prominent orchestration frameworks: Docker Swarm, Kubernetes, and Mesos, which can be combined with Marathon, Aurora or DC/OS. This study aims at (i) identifying the common and unique features of all frameworks, (ii) comparing these frameworks qualitatively and quantitatively with respect to genericity in terms of supported features, and (iii) investigating the maturity and stability of the frameworks as well as the pioneering nature of each framework by studying the historical evolution of the frameworks on GitHub. (3) Results: (i) we have identified 124 common features and 54 unique features that we divided into a taxonomy of 9 functional aspects and 27 functional sub-aspects. (ii) Kubernetes supports the highest number of accumulated common and unique features for all 9 functional aspects; however, no evidence has been found for significant differences in genericity with Docker Swarm and DC/OS. (iii) Very little feature deprecations have been found and 15 out of 27 sub-aspects have been identified as mature and stable. These are pioneered in descending order by Kubernetes, Mesos, and Marathon. (4) Conclusion: there is a broad and mature foundation that underpins all container orchestration frameworks. Likely areas for further evolution and innovation include system support for improved cluster security and container security, performance isolation of GPU, disk and network resources, and network plugin architectures.
Highlights
In recent years, there has been a strong industry adoption of Docker containers due to its easy-to-use approach for distributing and bootstrapping container images
(2) Methods: we present a descriptive feature comparison study of the three most prominent orchestration frameworks: Docker Swarm, Kubernetes, and Mesos, which can be combined with Marathon, Aurora or DC/OS
We give a systematic and exhaustive overview of all common and unique features whereas the work of Kratzke et al presents meta-models of configuration languages that encompass concepts to support expressing cluster or application configurations that are commonly supported by all container orchestration (CO) frameworks; in other words, our work is complementary as it can be used to refine and update the meta-models with support for common features that have not been discovered by Kratzke et al we do study common features, but we study the maturity of these common features to distinguish between stable features and those features that are relatively immature and subject to change; we discuss the risks of feature deprecation
Summary
There has been a strong industry adoption of Docker containers due to its easy-to-use approach for distributing and bootstrapping container images. In comparison to virtual machines, Linux containers have a lower memory footprint and allow for flexible resource. There has been a strong industry adoption of Docker containers due to its easy-. SSeci.a2p01p9r,o9,a9c3h1 for distributing and bootstrapping container images. In comparis2oonf 7to virtual machines, Linux containers have a lower memory footprint and allow for flexible resource allocation to improve server consolidation [1]. The popularity of Docker has changed the way in awllhoiccahtioapnptoliciamtipornovseofstewravreer ccoannsobleidpaatcioknag[e1d]. Mesos v0.25.0 [14] and Docker Swarm stand-alone v1.0.0 [15] by January 2016
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
