compare2orchestartors

Author: naorlivne

docs/compare2orchestrators.md

@@ -1,3 +1,15 @@
+A common question is why need another orchestrator when there are many other popular options? 
+
+the answer for that is that while the popular container orchestrators are great they have a few limitations which Nebula avoids:
+
+ 1. scale - even though this issue keep improving with all orchestrators Nebula approach allows for far greater scalability (alongside Mesos)
+ 2. multi region clusters - orchestrators tend to be latency sensitive, Nebula unique architecture makes it ideal to managing distributed apps (like CDN or IOT), while still maintaining agility
+ 3. managing clients appliances - this option is not covered by any of the current orchestrators as it's outside their use case scope
+ 4. config management - while puppet\chef\ansible are great for config management and orchestrators are great for scaling containers Nebula can also be thought of as a docker config management system
+ 
+attached below is a table comparision between Nebula and the popular options
+
+
 |  | Nebula | Mesos+Marathon\DC/OS | Kubernetes | Swarm |
 |-------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
 | Stateless masters | yes | yes | yes | no - data stored in local master raft consensus  |