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

Abstract

(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, 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.

Managing Feature Compatibility in Kubernetes: Vendor Comparison and Analysis

“…For Kubernetes v1.13 -the default k8s release of the major cloud providers at the time of our research -we identified 162 features in total. The small number of 14 additional features is in line with the emerging trend that the number of feature additions has significantly decreased in all mainstream orchestration platforms [19]. This trend can be explained by the fact that k8s already appeared as a de-facto standard [21]- [23] and the opensource development efforts refocused on improving the security, performance and robustness of existing k8s features [24]- [26].…”

“…For the first concern, we have already conducted a comprehensive study of the documentation of existing opensource container orchestration platforms, including Docker Swarm, Mesos and Kubernetes [19]. In this study, we have distinguished between common features (shared by at least two orchestration platforms) and 54 unique features.…”

“…4. For Kubernetes v1.11, released in July 2018, we identified in total 148 features [19]. For Kubernetes v1.13 -the default k8s release of the major cloud providers at the time of our research -we identified 162 features in total.…”

“…All vendors also differ from the default settings of the open-source k8s distribution (see Table V). Although cluster administrators cannot change these settings, there exists a run-time pluggable admission controller, named Webhook, which can be used in all vendors to inject custom code into a running cluster [19].…”

“…It allows for multiple network plugins to be installed simultaneously and intercomposed together. Some CNI plugins also allow attaching multiple network interface to a single Pod [19].…”