The Convergence of Container and Traditional Virtualization: Strengths and Limitations

Li, G; Takahashi, Keichi; Ichikawa, Kohei; Iida, Hajimu; Nakasan, Chawanat; Leelaprute, Pattara; Thiengburanathum, Pree; Phannachitta, Passakorn

doi:10.1007/s42979-023-01827-9

Cited by 1 publication

(4 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results indicate that performance between containers can vary, and LXD performs better in terms of system performance. The study by Li et al [13] provides a comprehensive comparison of different convergence architectures (Docker, QEMU/KVM, Firecracker, gVisor, and Kata). It analyzes performance metrics such as CPU, RAM, system calls, network, disk storage, and boot time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Li et al in [13] addressed a comprehensive comparison of different convergence architectures. They investigated the characteristics of container solutions such as Docker, QEMU/KVM, Firecracker, gVisor, and Kata to identify limitations and the most suitable use cases.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A container is an isolated environment where applications run on the basis of Docker images that define instructions for the container. Docker registries are used to store finished Docker images [13,31,32], see Figure 2. Docker Swarm is a tool for distributing containers and services, clustering them, and managing resources.…”

Section: Containerd Docker and Docker Swarm As A Container Orchestratormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Internet 2023, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20basis of Docker images that define instructions for the container. Docker registries are used to store finished Docker images[13,31,32], see Figure2.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Comparative Analysis of High Availability for Linux Container Infrastructures

Šimon,

Huraj,

Búčik

2023

Future Internet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the current era of prevailing information technology, the requirement for high availability and reliability of various types of services is critical. This paper focusses on the comparison and analysis of different high-availability solutions for Linux container environments. The objective was to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each solution and to determine the optimal container approach for common use cases. Through a series of structured experiments, basic performance metrics were collected, including average service recovery time, average transfer rate, and total number of failed calls. The container platforms tested included Docker, Kubernetes, and Proxmox. On the basis of a comprehensive evaluation, it can be concluded that Docker with Docker Swarm is generally the most effective high-availability solution for commonly used Linux containers. Nevertheless, there are specific scenarios in which Proxmox stands out, for example, when fast data transfer is a priority or when load balancing is not a critical requirement.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%