Lunchbadger vs Nomad
When comparing Lunchbadger vs Nomad, the Slant community recommends Nomad for most people. In the question“What are the best Docker orchestration tools?” Nomad is ranked 3rd while Lunchbadger is ranked 13th. The most important reason people chose Nomad is:
Being focused on one thing only also has its advantages. For one, Nomad is very simple architecturally. There's only a single binary for both clients and servers, it also does not need any external services for any coordination or storage.
Ranked in these QuestionsQuestion Ranking
Pros
Pro Simple, minimal architecture
Being focused on one thing only also has its advantages. For one, Nomad is very simple architecturally. There's only a single binary for both clients and servers, it also does not need any external services for any coordination or storage.
Pro Complex applications can easily be expressed through Nomad
Nomad uses a high-level abstraction of jobs. Jobs are essentially task groups (sets of tasks). Because of this, Nomad allows users to develop and manage complex applications easily, without having to think about the individual containers that make these applications.
Pro Easy to reason about
Nomad gives a lot of output and is intentionally kept simple. This makes maintenance easy and reduces downtimes.
Pro Big comapnies, like eBay and CircleCI use it
Cons
Con Only provides cluster management and scheduling
While other orchestration tools provide much more than just cluster management and scheduling (they also provide things like secrets management, discovery, monitoring, etc.), Nomad follows the Unix philosophy of doing only one thing and doing it well, providing only cluster management and scheduling.