Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

Docker-Swarm, Kubernetes, Mesos & Core-OS Fleet

People also ask

Is Kubernetes better than Mesos?

If we're starting afresh and we only plan to use containerized workloads, Kubernetes can offer a quicker solution. However, if we've existing workloads, which are a mix of containers and non-containers, Mesos with Marathon can be a better choice.

Is Docker swarm better than Kubernetes?

Docker Swarm provides high availability as you can easily duplicate the microservices in Docker Swarm. Moreover, Docker Swarm has a faster deployment time. On the other hand, it doesn't provide automatic scaling. Kubernetes is by nature highly available, fault tolerant, and self-healing.

What is Marathon and Mesos?

Marathon is a production-proven Apache Mesos framework for container orchestration, providing a REST API for starting, stopping, and scaling applications. Written in Scala, Marathon can run in highly-available mode by running multiple copies. The state of running tasks gets stored in the Mesos state abstraction.

Is Docker swarm being deprecated?

Docker Swarm is not being deprecated, and is still a viable method for Docker multi-host orchestration, but Docker Swarm Mode (which uses the Swarmkit libraries under the hood) is the recommended way to begin a new Docker project where orchestration over multiple hosts is required.


Disclosure: I'm a lead engineer on Kubernetes

I think that Mesos and Kubernetes are largely aimed at solving similar problems of running clustered applications, they have different histories and different approaches to solving the problem.

Mesos focuses its energy on very generic scheduling, and plugging in multiple different schedulers. This means that it enables systems like Hadoop and Marathon to co-exist in the same scheduling environment. Mesos is less focused on running containers. Mesos existed prior to widespread interest in containers and has been re-factored in parts to support containers.

In contrast, Kubernetes was designed from the ground up to be an environment for building distributed applications from containers. It includes primitives for replication and service discovery as core primitives, where-as such things are added via frameworks in Mesos. The primary goal of Kubernetes is a system for building, running and managing distributed systems.

Fleet is a lower-level task distributor. It is useful for bootstrapping a cluster system, for example CoreOS uses it to distribute the kubernetes agents and binaries out to the machines in a cluster in order to turn-up a kubernetes cluster. It is not really intended to solve the same distributed application development problems, think of it more like systemd/init.d/upstart for your cluster. It's not required if you run kubernetes, you can use other tools (e.g. Salt, Puppet, Ansible, Chef, ...) to accomplish the same binary distribution.

Swarm is an effort by Docker to extend the existing Docker API to make a cluster of machines look like a single Docker API. Fundamentally, our experience at Google and elsewhere indicates that the node API is insufficient for a cluster API. You can see a bunch of discussion on this here: https://github.com/docker/docker/pull/8859 and here: https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/8781

Hope that helps! Join us on IRC @ #google-containers if you want to talk more.


I think the simplest answer is that there is no simple answer. The swift rise to power of containers, and Docker in particular has left a power vacuum for "container scheduling and orchestration", whatever that might mean. In reality, that means you have a number of technologies that can work in harmony on some levels, but with certain aspects in competition. For example, Kubernetes can be used as a one stop shop for deploying and managing containers on a compute cluster (as Google originally designed it), but could also sit atop Fleet, making use of the resilience tier that Fleet provides on CoreOS.

As this Google vid states Kubernetes is not a complete out the box container scaling solution, but is a good statement to start from. In the same way, you would at some stage expect Apache Mesos to be able to work with Kubernetes, but not with Marathon, in as much as Marathon appears to fulfil the same role as Kubernetes. Somewhere I think I've read these could become part of the same effort, but I could be wrong about that - it's really about the strategic direction of Mesosphere and the corresponding adoption of Kubernetes principles.

In the DockerCon keynote, Solomon Hykes suggested Swarm would be a tier that could provide a common interface onto the many orchestration and scheduling frameworks. From what I can see, Swarm is designed to provide a smooth Docker deployment workflow, working with some existing container workflow frameworks such as Deis, but flexible enough to yield to "heavyweight" deployment and resource management such as Mesos.

Hope this helps - this could be an enormous post. I think the key is that these are young, evolving services that will likely merge and become interoperable, but we need to ride out the next 12 months to see how it plays out. There's some very clever people on the problem, so the future looks very bright.


As far as I understand it:

Mesos, Kubernetes and Fleet are all trying to solve a very similar problem. The idea is that you abstract away all your hardware from developers and the 'cluster management tool' sorts it all out for you. Then all you need to do is give a container to the cluster, give it some info (keep it running permanently, scale up if X happens etc) and the cluster manager will make it happen.

With Mesos, it does all the cluster management for you, but it doesn't include the scheduler. The scheduler is the bit that says, ok this process needs 2 procs and 512MB RAM, and I have a machine over there with that free, so I'll run it on that machine. There are some plugin schedulers available for Mesos: Marathon and Chronos and you can write your own. This gives you a lot of power of resource distribution and cluster scaling etc.

Fleet and Kubernetes seem to abstract away those sorts of details (so you don't have to write your own scheduler basically). This means you have to define your tasks and submit them in the format/manner defined by Fleet or Kubernetes and then they take over and schedule the tasks (containers) for you.

So I guess: Using Mesos may mean a bit more work in writing your own scheduler, but potentially provides more flexibility if required.

I think the idea of running Kubernetes on top of Mesos is that Kubernetes acts as the scheduler for Mesos. Personally I'm not sure what benefits this brings over running one or the other on its own though (hopefully someone will jump in and explain!)

As MikeB said.. it's early days, and it's all up for grabs (keep an eye on Amazon's ECS as well) so there are many competing standards and a lot of overlap!

-edit- I didn't mention Docker swarm as I don't really have much experience with it.


For anyone coming to this after 2017 fleet is deprecated. Do not use it anymore.

Fleet docs say "fleet is no longer actively developed or maintained by CoreOS" and link to Container orchestration: Moving from fleet to Kubernetes. Fleet was removed from Container Linux (formerly known as CoreOS Linux) and replaced with Kubernetes kubelet (agent). This coincided with a corporate pivot to offer Tectonic (a Kubernetes distro) as their primary product.