Journal of Grid Computing

, Volume 14, Issue 2, pp 265–282 | Cite as

Docker Cluster Management for the Cloud - Survey Results and Own Solution

  • René Peinl
  • Florian Holzschuher
  • Florian Pfitzer


Docker provides a good basis to run composite applications in the cloud, especially if those are not cloud-aware, or cloud-native. However, Docker concentrates on managing containers on one host, but SaaS providers need a container management solution for multiple hosts. Therefore, a number of tools emerged that claim to solve the problem. This paper classifies the solutions, maps them to requirements from a case study and identifies gaps and integration requirements. We close some of these gaps with our own integration components and tool enhancements, resulting in the currently most complete management suite.


Cloud computing Management tools Microservices System integration Docker Container 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Pahl, C.: Containerization and the PaaS Cloud. IEEE Cloud Comput., 24–31 (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Scheepers, M. J.: Virtualization and Containerization of Application Infrastructure: A Comparison. Presented at the 21st Twente Student Conference on IT , Twente The Netherlands June 23 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pahl, C., Lee, B.: Containers and clusters for edge cloud architectures-a technology review (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ranjan, R.: The cloud interoperability challenge. IEEE Cloud comput. 1, 20–24 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosen, R.: Linux containers and the future cloud. Linux J 2014, 3 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kratzke, N.: Lightweight virtualization cluster how to overcome cloud vendor Lock-In. J. Comput. Commun. 2, 1–7 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rubens, P.: Docker No Longer the Only Container Game in Town, (2015)
  8. 8.
    Hecht, L.: How Open Source Communities Power Docker and the Container Ecosystem, (2015)
  9. 9.
    Turnbull, J.: The Docker Book: Containerization is the new virtualization James Turnbull (2014)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lewis, J., Fowler, M.: Microservices, (2014)
  11. 11.
    Papazoglou, M. P.: Service-Oriented Computing: Concepts, characteristics and directions. In: Web Information Systems Engineering (WISE 2003). 4Th Int. Conf. On. Pp. 3–12. IEEE (2003)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mietzner, R., Leymann, F., Papazoglou, M. P.: Defining Composite Configurable SaaS Application Packages Using SCA, variability descriptors and multi-tenancy patterns. In: ICIW 2008. IEEE (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cockcroft, A.: State of the Art in Microservices. Presented at the DockerCon Europe 14 , Amsterdam Netherlands December 4 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Evans, E.: Domain Driven Design: Tackling Complexity in the Heart of Software. Addison-Wesley, Boston (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Binz, T., Breitenbücher, U., Kopp, O., Leymann, F.: TOSCA: Portable Automated Deployment and Management of Cloud Applications. In: Advanced Web Services. Pp. 527–549. Springer (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Roßbach, P.: Docker poster. Entwickler mag docker spez (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Docker Ecosystem Mindmap,
  18. 18.
    Peinl, R.: Docker ecosystem on Google Docs,
  19. 19.
    Docker, Inc.: About,
  20. 20.
    Crane, C.: The Container Ecosystem Project,
  21. 21.
    Wallner, R.: A breakdown of layers and tools within the container and microservices ecosystem, (2015)
  22. 22.
    Williams, A.: The Docker & Container Ecosystem The New Stack (2015)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Chauhan, M. A., Babar, M. A.: Migrating Service-Oriented System to Cloud Computing: an Experience Report. In: Cloud Computing (CLOUD) 2011, IEEE Int. Conf. On. Pp. 404–411. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Coffey, J., White, L., Wilde, N., Simmons, S.: Locating Software Features in a SOA Composite Application. In: 8Th European Conf. on Web Services (ECOWS 2010). Pp. 99–106. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sefraoui, O., Aissaoui, M., Eleuldj, M.: Openstack: toward an open-source solution for cloud computing. Int. J. Comput. Appl. 55, 38–42 (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Koukis, V.: Flexible Storage for HPC Clouds with Archipelago and Ceph. In: 8Th Workshop on Virtualization in High-Performance Cloud Computing. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chadwick, D. W., Siu, K., Lee, C., Fouillat, Y., Germonville, D.: Adding federated identity management to openstack. J. Grid Comput 12, 3–27 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Piraghaj, S. F., Dastjerdi, A. V., Calheiros, R. N., Buyya, R.: Efficient Virtual Machine Sizing for Hosting Containers as a Service. In: IEEE World Congress on Services. Pp. 31–38. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jain, R., Paul, S.: Network virtualization and software defined networking for cloud computing: a survey. Commun. Mag. IEEE 51, 24–31 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Day, S.: Docker Registry V2 - A New Model for Image Distribution. In: Docker Con 2015. , San Francisco (2015)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hausenblas, M.: Docker Registries: the Good, the Bad & the Ugly,
  32. 32.
    Mills, K., Filliben, J., Dabrowski, C.: Comparing VM Placement Algorithms for On-Demand Clouds. In: 3Rd Int. Conf. on Cloud Computing Technology and Science (Cloudcom). Pp. 91–98. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Verma, A., Pedrosa, L., Korupolu, M., Tune, D. O. E., Wilkes, J.: Large-Scale Cluster Management at Google with Borg. In: 10Th European Conference on Computer Systems. P. 18. ACM (2015)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schwarzkopf, M., Konwinski, A., Abd-El-Malek, M., Wilkes, J.: Omega: Flexible, Scalable Schedulers for Large Compute Clusters. In: 8Th ACM European Conf. on Computer Systems. Pp. 351–364. 1 (2013)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bucchiarone, A., Gnesi, S.: A Survey on Services Composition Languages and Models. In: Intl. Workshop on Web Services–Modeling and Testing (WS-Mate 2006). P. 51 (2006)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Caballer, M., Blanquer, I., Moltó, G., de Alfonso, C.: Dynamic management of virtual infrastructures. J. Grid Comput 13, 53–70 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bachlechner, D., Siorpaes, K., Fensel, D., Toma, I.: Web Service Discovery-A Reality Check. In: 3Rd European Semantic Web Conference (2006)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Vukojevic-Haupt, K., Haupt, F., Karastoyanova, D., Leymann, F.: Service Selection for On-demand Provisioned Services. In: 18Th Intl. Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC’14). Pp. 120–127. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Serebryany, I., Rhoads, M.: SmartStack: Service Discovery in the Cloud,
  40. 40.
    Swan, C.: ClusterHQ Launches Flocker to Facilitate Robust Stateful Docker Containers, (2014)
  41. 41.
    Hall, S.: Five Storage Companies That Speak To Docker’s Next Wave, (2015)
  42. 42.
    Han, S.: Getting Started With the Docker RBD Volume Plugin, (2015)
  43. 43.
    Lorido-Botran, T., Miguel-Alonso, J., Lozano, J. A.: A review of auto-scaling techniques for elastic applications in cloud environments. J. Grid Comput 12, 559–592 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Costache, C., Machidon, O., Mladin, A., Sandu, F., Bocu, R.: Software-Defined Networking of Linux Containers. In: 13Th Roedunet Conference. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Drutskoy, D., Keller, E., Rexford, J.: Scalable network virtualization in software-defined networks. IEEE Internet Comput. 17, 20–27 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rimal, B. P., Jukan, A., Katsaros, D., Goeleven, Y.: Architectural requirements for cloud computing systems: an enterprise cloud approach. J. Grid Comput 9, 3–26 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Liu, H., Wee, S.: Web Server Farm in the Cloud: Performance Evaluation and Dynamic Architecture. In: Cloud Computing. Pp. 369–380. Springer (2009)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Aceto, G., Botta, A., De Donato, W., Pescapè, A.: Cloud monitoring: a survey. Comput. Netw 57, 2093–2115 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ward, J. S., Barker, A.: Observing the clouds: a survey and taxonomy of cloud monitoring. J. Cloud Comput. Adv. Syst. Appl. 3, 40 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yegulalp, S.: Docker Datacenter promises end-to-end container control for enterprises, (2016)
  51. 51.
    Polvi, A.: The Security-minded Container Engine by CoreOS: rkt Hits 1.0, (2016)
  52. 52.
    Kratzke, N.: About Microservices, Containers and their Underestimated Impact on Network Performance. CLOUD Comput. 2015, 180 (2015)Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kazemier, A.: BalancerBattle,
  54. 54.
    Felter, W., Ferreira, A., Rajamony, R., Rubio, J.: An upyeard performance comparison of virtual machines and linux containers. Research Report RC25482, IBM Almaden (2014)Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Seo, K. -T., Hwang, H. -S., Moon, I. -Y., Kwon, O. -Y., Kim, B. -J.: Performance comparison analysis of linux container and virtual machine for building cloud. Adv. Sci. Technol. Lett. Netw. Commun 66, 105–107 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kabhal: Introduce multiple scaling strategies mesosphere/marathon Issue #1477,
  57. 57.
    Lindner, M., Galán, F., Chapman, C., Clayman, S., Henriksson, D., Elmroth, E.: The Cloud Supply Chain: a Framework for Information, Monitoring, Accounting and Billing 2Nd Int. Conf. on Cloud Comp (2010)Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Sreelakshmi, S.: OpenContrail – Kubernetes Integration, (2015)
  59. 59.
    Peinl, R., Holzschuher, F.: The Docker Ecosystem Needs Consolidation. In: 5Th Intl. Conf. on Cloud Computing and Services Science (CLOSER 2015) 535-542 SCITEPRESS, Lisbon, Portugal (2015)Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kazemi, S.: CRIU Support in Docker for Native Checkpoint and Restore. In: Linux Plumbers Conference 2015. , Seattle, Washington, USA (2015)Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Berman, L.: Are Diego and Docker Really Good Friends?, (2015)
  62. 62.
    Dadgar, A.: Nomad, (2015)
  63. 63.
    Hashicorp: Nomad vs. Other Software, (2015)
  64. 64.
    Owens, K.: Building Cisco’s IoE PaaS with Mantl, (2015)
  65. 65.
    Yegulalp, S.: Hypernetes unites Kubernetes, OpenStack for multitenant container management, (2015)
  66. 66.
    Crisp Research Open cloud alliance - openness as an imperative crisp research (2014)Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Kratzke, N.: A lightweight virtualization cluster reference architecture derived from open source PaaS platforms. Open J. Mob. Comput. Cloud Comput 1, 17–30 (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • René Peinl
    • 1
  • Florian Holzschuher
    • 1
  • Florian Pfitzer
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Information SystemsHof University, Alfons-Goppel-Platz 1HofGermany

Personalised recommendations