38 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
38 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
|
---
|
||
|
|
layout: "intro"
|
||
|
|
page_title: "Nomad vs. Docker Swarm"
|
||
|
|
sidebar_current: "vs-other-swarm"
|
||
|
|
description: |-
|
||
|
|
Comparison between Nomad and Docker Swarm
|
||
|
|
---
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
# Nomad vs. Docker Swarm
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Docker Swarm is the native clustering solution for Docker. It provides
|
||
|
|
an API compatible with the Docker Remote API, but allows containers to
|
||
|
|
be scheduled across many machines.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Nomad differs in many ways with Docker Swarm. Most obviously, Docker Swarm
|
||
|
|
can only be used to run Docker containers, while Nomad is more general purpose.
|
||
|
|
Nomad supports virtualized, containerized and standalone applications, including Docker.
|
||
|
|
Nomad is designed with extensible drivers and support will be extended to all
|
||
|
|
common drivers.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Docker Swarm provides API compatibility with their remote API, which focuses
|
||
|
|
on the container abstraction. Nomad uses a higher-level abstraction of jobs.
|
||
|
|
Jobs contain task groups, which are sets of tasks. This allows more complex
|
||
|
|
applications to be expressed and easily managed without reasoning about the
|
||
|
|
individual containers that compose the application.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
The architectures also differ between Nomad and Docker Swarm.
|
||
|
|
Nomad does not depend on external systems for coordination or storage,
|
||
|
|
is distributed, highly available, and supports multi-datacenter
|
||
|
|
and multi-region configurations.
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
By contrast, Swarm is not distributed or highly available by default.
|
||
|
|
External systems must be used for coordination to support replication.
|
||
|
|
When Swarm has replication enabled, it uses an active/standby model,
|
||
|
|
meaning the other servers cannot be used to make scheduling decisions.
|
||
|
|
Swarm does not support multiple failure isolation regions or federation.
|
||
|
|
|