30 lines
1.2 KiB
Markdown
30 lines
1.2 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
layout: "intro"
|
|
page_title: "Nomad vs. Custom Solutions"
|
|
sidebar_current: "vs-other-custom"
|
|
description: |-
|
|
Comparison between Nomad and writing a custom solution.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Nomad vs. Custom Solutions
|
|
|
|
It is an undisputed fact that distributed systems are hard; building
|
|
one is error-prone and time-consuming. As a result, few organizations
|
|
build a scheduler due to the inherent challenges. However,
|
|
most organizations must develop a means of deploying applications
|
|
and typically this evolves into an ad hoc deployment platform.
|
|
|
|
These deployment platforms are typically special cased to the needs
|
|
of the organization at the time of development, reduce future agility,
|
|
and require time and resources to build and maintain.
|
|
|
|
Nomad provides a high-level job specification to easily deploy applications.
|
|
It has been designed to work at large scale, with multi-datacenter and
|
|
multi-region support built in. Nomad also has extensible drivers giving it
|
|
flexibility in the workloads it supports, including Docker.
|
|
|
|
Nomad provides organizations of any size a solution for deployment
|
|
that is simple, robust, and scalable. It reduces the time and effort spent
|
|
re-inventing the wheel and users can focus instead on their business applications.
|
|
|