35 lines
1.7 KiB
Plaintext
35 lines
1.7 KiB
Plaintext
---
|
|
layout: intro
|
|
page_title: Nomad vs. Other Software
|
|
description: Comparisons between Nomad and other cluster managers.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Nomad vs. Other Software
|
|
|
|
The following characteristics generally differentiate Nomad from related products:
|
|
|
|
- **Simplicity**: Nomad runs as a single process with zero external dependencies.
|
|
Operators can easily provision, manage, and scale Nomad. Developers can easily
|
|
define and run applications.
|
|
- **Flexibility**: Nomad can run a diverse workload of containerized, legacy,
|
|
microservice, and batch applications. Nomad can schedule service, batch
|
|
processing and system jobs, and can run on both Linux and Windows.
|
|
- **Scalability and High Performance**: Nomad can schedule thousands of containers
|
|
per second, scale to thousands of nodes in a single cluster, and easily federate
|
|
across regions and cloud providers.
|
|
- **HashiCorp Interoperability**: Nomad elegantly integrates with Vault for secrets
|
|
management and Consul for service discovery and dynamic configuration. Nomad's
|
|
Consul-like architecture and Terraform-like job specification lower the barrier
|
|
to entry for existing users of the HashiCorp stack.
|
|
|
|
There are many relevant categories for comparison including cluster managers,
|
|
resource managers, workload managers, and schedulers. There are many existing
|
|
tools in each category, and the comparisons are not exhaustive of the entire space.
|
|
|
|
Due to the bias of the comparisons being on the Nomad website, we attempt to only
|
|
use facts. If you find something that is invalid or out of date in the comparisons,
|
|
please [open an issue](https://github.com/hashicorp/nomad/issues) and we will
|
|
address it as soon as possible.
|
|
|
|
Use the navigation on the left to read comparisons of Nomad versus other systems.
|