A Comprehensive Feature Comparison Study of Open-Source Container Orchestration Frameworks

Eddy Truyen, Dimitri Van Landuyt, Davy Preuveneers, Bert Lagaisse, Wouter Joosen
2019 Applied Sciences  
(1) Background: Container orchestration frameworks provide support for management ofcomplex distributed applications. Different frameworks have emerged only recently, and they havebeen in constant evolution as new features are being introduced. This reality makes it difficult forpractitioners and researchers to maintain a clear view of the technology space. (2) Methods: wepresent a descriptive feature comparison study of the three most prominent orchestrationframeworks: Docker Swarm,
more » ... r 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 allframeworks, (ii) comparing these frameworks qualitatively ánd quantitatively with respect togenericity in terms of supported features, and (iii) investigating the maturity and stability of theframeworks as well as the pioneering nature of each framework by studying the historical evolutionof the frameworks on GitHub. (3) Results: (i) we have identified 124 common features and 54 uniquefeatures 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 9functional aspects; however, no evidence has been found for significant differences in genericitywith Docker Swarm and DC/OS. (iii) Very little feature deprecations have been found and 15 out of27 sub-aspects have been identified as mature and stable. These are pioneered in descending orderby Kubernetes, Mesos, and Marathon. (4) Conclusion: there is a broad and mature foundation thatunderpins all container orchestration frameworks. Likely areas for further evolution and innovationinclude system support for improved cluster security and container security, performance isolationof GPU, disk and network resources, and network plugin architectures.
doi:10.3390/app9050931 fatcat:csmwlkzqdjeptbot3gmef2czzi