RIP
this post was submitted on 25 Apr 2024
103 points (94.8% liked)
Open Source
31253 readers
280 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
IBM...isn't that where things go to die?
IBM's management hierarchy is deeper than the Nine Circles in Dante's Inferno, plus you get to use JIRA.
Yes it is
Who came up with this ridiculous headline?
Nomad isn't a real alternative to Kubernetes/OpenShift.
In what sense? It's a competitor by design.
From the mouth of the beast https://developer.hashicorp.com/nomad/docs/nomad-vs-kubernetes What I have read online is that Nomad can have issues at large scale. No personal experience.
In any case since now OpenShift and Nomad are both under IBM's umbrella there is space for an enterprise Kubernetes distribution, if someone is brave enough.
That page pitches Nomad as a direct and better competitor to K8s. Both are considered as container orchestration platforms, though nomad can orchestrate other types of jobs as well.
When it comes to scalability, the anecdotes I've heard says that Nomad is better. Even the page you provided says the same. (I did try Nomad. But didn't scale it enough to test this).
The only real issue that I faced with Nomad in comparison to K8s is running certain infrastructure loads like CNI and CSI plugins (like longhorn and mayastor). They don't just talk to K8s through the standard interfaces (which Nomad also has), they often integrate deep into K8s using operators and CRDs. Nomad doesn't have the provisions to support such nonstandard deep integrations.